Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 8

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coffee (talk | contribs) at 02:52, 15 February 2022 (Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Geeta Vadhera (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:52, 15 February 2022 by Coffee (talk | contribs) (Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Geeta Vadhera (XFDcloser))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday December 30 (Mon) December 29 (Sun) December 28 (Sat) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< February 07	February 09 >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

2012 East Africa Premier League

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tournament which fails WP:NCRIC. There is very little coverage of the event beyond what would be WP:ROUTINE (mostly scorecards on Cricinfo). Also fails WP:EVENT as there is no WP:LASTING effect ten years on. WP:GNG not really satisfied either.

I am also nominating the following related pages per the above:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Fade258 (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete all as they fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete both Both tournaments fail WP:GNG and as the nom states it fails WP:EVENT AND WP:LASTING. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete, Non notable tournament, fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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 result was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Ibrahim Ahmad Maqari

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. The subject has no significant coverage in sources cited in the article, as well as few other I checked which are not cited. Multiple paragraphs uncited, and WP:Citation overkill just for the statement: "He is the present Imam of the National Mosque Abuja, he's always straddling between Abuja, Zaria and Kano on a weekly basis." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Source assessment table prepared by User:Kavyansh.Singh
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bbc.com/hausa/labarai-55932475	Per WP:RS/PS#BBC	Per WP:RS/PS#BBC	unable to judge due to the article being in a foreign language	? Unknown
https://sheikhmaqary.com.ng/e-books	apparently a self published website	looks like someone's personal website	merely some pdfs of books	✘ No
https://www.abujanationalmosque.org/management/	primary source, website of the Mosque		I don't see a single mention of "Ibrahim Maqari"	✘ No
https://www.blueprint.ng/appoint-chief-imam-for-national-mosque-abuja/	media outlet with independent coverage		just one passing mention	✘ No
https://dailytrust.com/time-to-appoint-chief-imam-for-national-mosque	media outlet with independent coverage		passing mentions	✘ No
https://www.legit.ng/1414305-paying-ransom-kidnappers-permitted-islam-islamic-cleric.html		not sure	passing mentions, merely using Maqari's statements does not make his notable.	✘ No
https://dailynigerian.com/hausa/saudiyya-ce-ke-horas-da-yan-taadda-babban-limamin-abuja/	media outlet with independent coverage		one passing mention	✘ No
https://hausa.legit.ng/1426412-abduljabbar-sheikh-maqary-ya-yi-karin-haske-bayan-wasu-kalamansa-sun-tada-kura.html		not sure		? Unknown
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}}.

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete - it is also so poorly written from a grammatical perspective that it's an embarrassment and detraction to Misplaced Pages. Ira Leviton (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep - Because the grammatical perspective were fixed and furthermore English is not our native language! We're all here to give our contributions best on our little knowledge. Nobody is perfect, so I think that's the advantage of everyone can edit Misplaced Pages pages as far as he had created an account and has the ability to do so with the wiki rules. Ira Leviton you can help us and fixed some grammatical errors. thank you all Salihu Aliyu (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes @Salihu Aliyu, I agree that prose and grammar issues should not be a reason for deleting an article. At AfD, we determine notability. But, if the topic is not notable, then no level of editing can make it notable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete - Yes I agree, grammar issues are not a reason to deleta an article, if it is otherwise noteworthy. Grammar can be fixed. However, the analysis of the RS here seems to indicate it isn't notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep consensus is this meets GEOLAND Star Mississippi 01:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Guthrie, Arizona

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous nomination appears to have been an act of spite, but in reexamination I find that this seems to have been nothing more than a rail spot which evaporated with the steam locomotive. No evidence that it was a town, and the current houses nearby have no relation to the older place. Mangoe (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep. The GNIS entry says there was a post office there 1901-22 and a Wells Fargo office. this article] shows there was scheduled train service. this] shows it was a junction of two railroads, the Morenci Southern Railroad and the Arizona and New Mexico Railway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 2022-02-09T01:12:49 (UTC)
- We have consistently deleted rail locations like this where there isn't and wasn't a town. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  - I have always !voted to delete rail sidings, but this was a small mining town. Sidings don't have scheduled service with timetable published in the newspaper. MB 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - irrelevant locality name. Is there any reliable reference to show that the name is in use - other than in some ancient almanac or railway timetable? Why not add a mention in the relevant county article? Silent Billy (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant whether the name is "in use". This town existed and had a small population. MB 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Arcadia Publishing has this, once again. Guthie was a "town" per Chilicky & Hunt 2015, p. 19 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFChilickyHunt2015 (help). So we know what it specifically was, rather than the generic "populated place". The GNIS description is rubbish, the sort of thing that one expects from the GNIS given how that particular sausage was made. Myrick 1984, p. 65 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMyrick1984 (help) is clearer, giving a better explanation. Guthrie Smith was not in fact the sheriff of Guthrie mining town, but a director of the mining company. He was a Sheriff of Banff.
- Chilicky, Robert A.; Hunt, Gerald D. (2015). Clifton and Morenci Mining District. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9781467134316.
- Myrick, David F. (1984). Railroads of Arizona: The southern roads, Volumes 1–3. Howell-North Books. ISBN 9780831071110.
I found a few more sources about this mining town, and there's probably a short paragraph of stuff that one could wring from them. The population was "about 30" in 1922, for example. Pretty much nothing in the present article is helpful for a rewrite, its sole sources being the unreliable GNIS and a "hometown locator" with not a single actual history book in sight, and this article at present is verifiably false.
Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- GNIS is perfectly reliable for the location and elevation, which is all it really sources. The fact that you agree this was a small mining town validates its existence, therefore it meets Wp:NGO. MB 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  - That's a dramatic U-turn from where, only a few bullet points above, you were arguing that it sources stuff about Wells Fargo. I specifically said the GNIS description, which is not something that I agree with, because that description talks about a "Sheriff Guthrie Smith" rather than advocate John Guthrie Smith, as I already explained.
    And if one knows how the GNIS sausage was made, one realizes that it isn't even reliable for location data, as some locations were taken from where the words were on the map, which in some cases were just the middles of areas (with not even dot markers), resulting in an erroneous precision. Then there's what Misplaced Pages:Reliability of GNIS data relates about the … variety of sources that were used to compile the GNIS data back in the 20th century. Hubbard, Indiana (AfD discussion) is in fact a good case in point. The Hubbard farm was a 704 acre tract of prairie land, not an exact point, and we know where it was (which is not where the GNIS coöordinates, taken from the word on a map, put it) because the Haven Hubbard Home is still there.
    In any other context an article whose sole content was verifiably false would be unequivocally a hoax article. Policy is not a suicide pact, and does not require us to keep outright falsehoods in article space until someone ambles along years from now to fix them. After all, the article does not say that this was (not is) a small mining town, and since I'm in fact the first to say that I'm not really agreeing with anyone, here or the writers of the article.
    Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep I don't have access to the printed sources, but I will accept the above assertion that Guthrie had a population of 30 in 1922 and was a small mining town. Meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY ~ 15:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 00:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment, is this the same Guthrie that has a listed bridge (pages 392-395)? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of how texts referring to a place as the location of something are not strong references. You can look at the map shown in the document and see that the bridge is not particularly near Guthrie; it's actually somewhat closer to Two Way. And of course, it doesn't say anything about what Guthrie was. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

tks Mangoe, agree, it was just me going down an interesting (for those who like bridges:) rabbit hole. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep, as it passes geoland.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Fooya

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an obvious advertisement for an App. I am somewhat unsure of the notability, however, some of the sources are misrepresented and at least one led me to a malicious website. SVTCobra 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: If something is an "obvious" advertisement it is eligible for WP:G11 so I suggest putting a speedy deletion nomination on it if you are certain it's spam or adjusting your rationale to say it is not obvious. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That's my dilemma. There are some legitimate sources, but the article is written as an advertisement. If it was the work of a single editor, I'd put it for G11. If notability was obvious, I'd request it be cleaned up. It's not naked spam, so no, I am not convinced I should change my wording. --SVTCobra 23:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I would also note that User:Chippadum who created the article might have undisclosed COI or paid editing given that it had promotional language even when it was first made. In any event, I believe G11 still applies even when a subject is notable, yet the entire article reads like an ad. No article is preferable to a blatant advertisement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. (I arrived at this article through a winding road which took me through Commons but my starting point was WP:COIN in a discussion about an unrelated article.) You might be right about G11 and if you are sure, you can do it. I prefer the longer process. --SVTCobra 23:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment I reverted the article to an earlier version with less promotional content. I'll look at notability a bit later. Jumpytoo Talk 23:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Other than the articles based on press releases, I see no coverage of Fooya by secondary sources. Even going to the Fooya website and following the links they supplied didn't reveal any significant secondary coverage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Per my source analysis based on the article reversion pre-revert:

Extended content
1. Dead 2. Non-independent, published by the developer 3. Dead 4. Non-independent, BSP provided the mobile game intervention and technical support and edited the manuscript and from the COI Coauthor BSP is the founder and CEO of FriendsLearn, the company that produced the mobile game used in this study 5. Same as 4 6. Same as 4 7. The coverage amounts to a line in a table and pasing mentions 8. Same as 4 9. Same as 4 10. Doesn't seem to have intellectual independence 11. Trivial 12. Dead 13. Not reliable & independent 14. Coverage is based off the non-independent study noted in 4 15. See 14 16. Same as 4 17. Passing coverage 18. No coverage 19. Written by the CEO and founder of the developer 20. Possibly could count, but I cannot find the full study anywhere to validate independence 21. No intellectual independence 22. Dead 23. Dead 24. Dup of 20 25. No significant coverage 26. Not significant 27. Dead 28. Trivial/PR 29. Seems trivial 30. Dead 31. Dead

Extended content

1. Dead

2. Non-independent, published by the developer

3. Dead

4. Non-independent, BSP provided the mobile game intervention and technical support and edited the manuscript and from the COI Coauthor BSP is the founder and CEO of FriendsLearn, the company that produced the mobile game used in this study

5. Same as 4

6. Same as 4

7. The coverage amounts to a line in a table and pasing mentions

8. Same as 4

9. Same as 4

10. Doesn't seem to have intellectual independence

11. Trivial

12. Dead

13. Not reliable & independent

14. Coverage is based off the non-independent study noted in 4

15. See 14

16. Same as 4

17. Passing coverage

18. No coverage

19. Written by the CEO and founder of the developer

20. Possibly could count, but I cannot find the full study anywhere to validate independence

21. No intellectual independence

22. Dead

23. Dead

24. Dup of 20

25. No significant coverage

26. Not significant

27. Dead

28. Trivial/PR

29. Seems trivial

30. Dead

31. Dead

TL;DR: Only source 20 could be significant coverage, conditional on being able to view the full study for an independence check. Jumpytoo Talk 05:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. North America 02:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Interstate 422

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advanced search for:
"Birmingham Northern Beltline"

In books/documents
Google Books Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Free English newspaper archives

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal The Misplaced Pages Library Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

A poster child for WP:NOTCRYSTAL, as the project ground to a halt less than a year after the previous AfD concluded, as related here. Contrary to the article and the previous discussion, no segment has been completed: there are some disconnected sections of paving, connecting to nothing. So there is no I-422, and it looks as though for now there isn't going to be; it might not even be given this name if it is ever completed. Possibly there is some record of failed highway projects we keep where this material can be used, but this needs to have gone the first time around. Mangoe (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete There is no actual working road. This may change at some point, but there is no current indication it will.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I can trump your 2017 al.com article, Mangoe, with a more recent article from the same place. ☺
- Koplowitz, Howard (2021-11-09). "Birmingham Northern Beltline gets $360 million from federal infrastructure bill". al.com.
Once again, the major problem is not having this as Birmingham Northern Beltline, which it has been known as since the late 1980s, irrespective of road number.
Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Move to Birmingham Northern Beltline. The history of a northern loop around Birmingham, regardless of if or when it will come to fruition or what the potential numeric designation is, is certainly an encyclopedic topic. Notability is not temporary, and WP:GNG is met, given the existence of reliable sources (including rather recent ones, as indicated above). --Kinu /_c 17:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge to List_of_future_Interstate_Highways#Other_proposals with a new and shorter subsection for Birmingham Northern Beltline. Proposed and never built highways can actually be notable if they have generated enough coverage. The article already includes references that demonstrate that this project has generated such coverage and therefore it is a notable topic for inclusion on a larger page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to come to consensus on merger target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep. As repeatedly demonstrated at AFD, failed proposals (for secession of states, for many other actions) are frequently notable and Misplaced Pages articles about them are Kept. E.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada, closed Keep in June 2021, which lists numerous proposals, some having separate articles. Because a proposal can have plenty of substantial coverage, justifying an article, and this is good IMHO because it is important for the world to "remember" and learn from the proposals. I believe that the deletion nominator is fully aware of this, and their proposal citing WP:NOTCRYSTAL is completely unjustified. Another experienced editor goes with statement that "There is no actual working road" which is absolutely besides the point.

Merging an article about a proposal to a suitable list-article can be done sometimes if there is an appropriate target to which to merge, and if the merger material would not be too much to include in the target. However List of future Interstate Highways does not sound like an appropriate target, because this proposal is understood not to be one of those. The "Proposals" subsection of that list is about, I think, proposals that are still viable and expected to become future Interstate Highways. And further note every one of the proposal subsections there links to a separate "main" article. If that list-article were to be renamed and/or other editing took place there which led to inclusion there of a section on this proposal, that might be fine and good, but still the existing separate article should be Kept because the material is too long to include there.

Suggestions above that this article should be renamed to "Birmingham Northern Beltline" sound reasonable perhaps, to me, but the AFD should be closed "Keep", and a rename proposal can be separately considered using usual wp:RM method. This discussion itself is not adequate to justify a rename, IMO, as many participants here are not considering it as the main real option. I think it best to just close this as Keep, or "Keep, obviously", perhaps with explicit admonishment to the deletion nominator and perhaps others not to waste others' time at wp:AFD. --Doncram (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep, we have Interstate 605 (Washington) for example. --Rs chen 7754 04:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ritchie333 12:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Pete

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage outside of industry publications. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 23:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable entertainer lacking enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't pass GNG.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Brian Pumper

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage outside of industry publications, except for a brief mention in an article about someone else. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 23:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Musical Work listed on Spotify with over 200 monthly listeners. Crime news attention. Rusty5231B (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Having 200 listeners on Spotify is not an independent secondary source. What you'd need is a secondary reliable source discussing him and his music. Also, VladTV is not a reliable source. VLADTV is presently offering an opportunity for users to submit articles and related or included photographs, music, videos, interviews, news content, software, and any other Writer-generated information (“Articles”) for consideration for publication on the VLADTV Website using the “VladTV Writer Tool.” The Writer Tool is being provided at the sole and absolute discretion of VLADTV, and may be terminated at any time without prior notice to you, or to any individual user who has submitted an article (a “Submitter”). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#listing_sources_at_AfD_instead_of_just_fixing_the_article? contained a suggestion to fix the article rather than list additional citations here. Article fixes have been made. Rusty5231B (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  I removed pretty much all of that as poorly sourced. Citing a blog post that is an attack piece on another BLP to state in this BLPs article that they are look alikes? Citing passing attacks on them in interviews in their article? Citing a blog post on noisy about who they would cast in a movie that doesn't exist? Citing a gossip column in a BLP to make claims about this BLP and another BLP? Citing Gawker, which is generally unreliable at WP:RSP for claims about BLPs? None of that was fit for an article, especially a BLP article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:ANYBIO: AVN awards, not notable. No SIGCOV in other areas of his work. SN54129 09:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Rhesus macaque#Feral colonies in the United States. the reason this is a redirect and not a merge is per KoA's note below and related edits. If someone wants to add further material and/or should this merit a standalone article at a point in the future, the info is under the redirect. Star Mississippi 01:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Feral rhesus macaque

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if subject matter warrants a standalone article. Most of the content can be merged into Rhesus macaque#Feral colonies in the United States Mooonswimmer 21:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge A whole section on a single loose monkey in Tampa Bay is undue weight and does not represent the concept of feral monkeys. Reywas92 23:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

None of the other sections have that problem however. Invasive Spices (talk) 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Because the article is beyond stub length I think it would just become a candidate to unmerge some time in the future. But this merge effort has made me find citations and add an entirely new location, Desecheo Puerto Rico. Invasive Spices (talk) 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge. If it ever establishes standalone notability as a topic, it can always be WP:SPLIT out. Length doesn't play into WP:GNG, and we can't guess what the future may hold for it due to WP:CRYSTAL policy. WP:DUE mention at the Macaque article can be accomplished though. KoA (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that the merge is practically already done as of this recent edit, so it would just be a matter of a redirect at this point. The target article already has all the key details of this article, so we're dealing with a largely redundant prime for redirect article at this point.

In reality when a species has become invasive in some fashion, that is dealt with on the species page unless we get much more content than just this in order to justify a split. WP:PAGEDECIDE policy is what needs to be satisfied to maintain a separate article, and I see nothing that address that here in any depth in terms of the article sources/content or AfD comments. KoA (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep - plenty of sources to establish notability, and merging all the relevant sourced information into the rhesus macaque article would give undue weight to that subject, which already has a summary in that article. Rlendog (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The sources only establish the notability of macaques in general (which is a given per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES anyways) not for simply being feral. A species going invasive or escaping captivity is generally well within the domain of the species page for something of this small scale. Nothing exists that would really warrant going beyond a single section in a main article either for the merge. Everything in the current article is pretty pruneable and an easy merge briefly describing the few locations and keeping some of the tabloidy stuff brief. KoA (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge per above, nothing in this article that cannot be sufficiently covered at rhesus macaque. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep a few release/escape locations makes them like Feral parakeets in Great Britain and Australian feral camel. LondonIP (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments aren't appropriate at AFDs. KoA (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Christian XXX

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage outside of industry publications. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep - industry coverage does count and so does a feature in the Village Voice that's already cited in the article Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Industry coverage does not count towards meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Agree with Morbidthoughts, disagree with John Pack Lambert Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for more time for policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete No, industry fluff does not count towards notability at all, this has been well-established in dozens and dozens of pornography deletion discussions. Second, the Village Voice article no longer seems to exist. There's an XBiz article about the supposed VV profile, and this forum post is allegedly by the author saying it was coming out in VV soon, but it is curious that it cannot be found in any archive or reprint. It's only from 2006, not like we're trying to track down something from the 70s here. Even if located, it would only be a single, possible source. Still short of notability requirements. Zaathras (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, I posted the two archived links above. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete fails inclusion standards. Spartaz 16:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: hopefully this relist actually helps
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete per Zaathras. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete -- fails WP:BASIC / WP:ENT per review of available sources. Industry blotter does not count towards notability, while an article in Village Voice, albeit in two parts, is insufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Rocco Reed

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial coverage outside of adult industry publications. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep I've heard of him. I go to Misplaced Pages to find out stuff about people I have heard of. If there is no information then Misplaced Pages is incomplete. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: The statement above should be disregarded since it has no connection to wikipedia policy.TheFinalMigration (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT, per review of available sources.--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. North America 02:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Chinese Music Society of North America

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I cannot find sources establishing notability. Website appears to be down, and I cannot find record of the supposedly quarterly, peer-reviewed journal it publishes. (Searched in English and Chinese.) WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Li, Yuanyuan (July 1983). "Ting na guo yue: Listen to that national music (an introduction to the promotional work done by the Chinese Music Society of North America)". Mingpao Monthly (in Chinese). Vol. 18, no. 7. Media Chinese International. pp. 37–38. EBSCOhost A427656.
  The English-language abstract notes: "Since the establishment of the Chinese Music Society of North America, the international organization as well as the regional chapters have used various means to expand the contact of the general public with Chinese music and to increase their ability to understand it. The author discusses the research sponsored by the society and the journal Chinese music, first published in 1978."
2. Jeffcoat, Kyle (2009). "Contesting the Modern Ethnic Orchestra on Transnational Terrains: Comparing Two Chinese Orchestras in Post-WWII America". American Association for Chinese Studies 51st Annual Conference Program. American Association for Chinese Studies. City University of New York. Archived from the original on 2022-02-14. Retrieved 2022-02-14.
  This is a conference paper for the 2009 conference. According to this 2018 article in the American Journal of Chinese Studies, "Peter C.Y. Chow moved the Secretariat to the City University of New York where he has now served as the association's first Executive Director for twenty years." The conference paper provides a lengthy and critical analysis of the association's history:
  The Chinese Music Society of North America (CMSNA) was initially organized in 1969 as the Chinese Musician’s International Network (CMIN) which grew into an international organization and changed its name to Chinese Music Society of North America in 1976 after registering with the federal government as a non-profit organization. During that same year the group formed the Chinese Classical Orchestra with initially only a dozen members. In a pamphlet mailed out to various institutions across the United States in 1981, the CMSNA announced that it would sponsor a free presentation featuring Mao Yuan as a guest speaker and that from 1976 to 1978 the orchestra annually performed Mao Yuan’s “Dance of Yao” (瑤族舞曲), most likely the 1954 Peng Xiuwen (彭修文) arrangement for modern Chinese orchestra.
  The CMSNA began publishing their official international journal Chinese Music in 1978. Nearly all of the cited sources in this journal come from their own publications and the majority of them are authored by the Shen Sin-yan, who is also the main editor of the publication and one of the main co-founders of CMSNA. The chauvinism of CMSNA is quite evident in many respects, but the following sentence efficaciously sums up their excessive boasting: “From coast to coast, from continent to continent, the critic’s choice for the last three decades, the Chinese Music Society of North America has produced the most culturally and artistically stimulating musical experience in Chinese Music globally.” In 2005, Xiao Jun made a similar declaration of superiority, however, going a step further by providing a precise location: “In the beginning of the 1970’s, Chicago became the center of Chinese music internationally.” In 1978, the group recognized itself as “one of the best Chinese orchestras in the US,” but not as the best or the center of all Chinese music in the entire world, therefore we can see how such boastings were not formed until later in the group’s history. It is important to notice how they implicitly admitted that other respectable Chinese orchestras in the US at that time existed because never again was such recognition seen in print after the late 1970s.
3. Annual Report. National Endowment for the Arts. 2000. pp. 52–53. Retrieved 2022-02-14 – via Google Books.
  According to commons:Template:PD-USGov-NEA, works from the National Endowment for the Arts are in the public domain since it is a work of the U.S. federal government.
  The report notes: "The Chinese Music Society of North America in Naperville, Illinois was organized in 1969 to increase the knowledge of Chinese music and performing arts, and became a nonprofit organization in 1976. The Society often works through performances by the Chinese Classical Orchestra, led by Dr. Shen Sin-yan, an authority on Chinese music. Today, the Society membership numbers more than 1,800 musicians and music lovers. In performance and on recordings, the Chinese Classical Orchestra has internationalized Chinese music over the last two decades, making it more accessible to the general public. In FY 2004, the Society received an NEA Challenge America grant of $10,000 to support the 2004–2005 season gala concert of the Chinese Classical Orchestra. The gala concert was held on November 6, 2004 in the International House Auditorium of Chicago. The orchestra uses traditional Chinese instruments such as the bawu, a free-reeded bamboo flute; the yangqin, a grand dulcimer; the erhu, a vertical python-skin fiddle; and the pipa, a grand lute. The program included traditional Chinese folk music, a Peking Opera medley, and works by contemporary Chinese composers. Compositions performed included Moon over the Mountain Pass, military music from the Tang Dynasty; The Flower Sobs by 20th-century Suzhou Pingtan ballad singer Xu Lixian; and Yan Tieming's Fishing Song featuring the haunting sound of the bawu. The concert drew a predominantly Asian-American audience from the Chicago metropolitan area, northern Indiana, and Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin."
4. "'Chinese Music; official publication of the Chinese Music Society of North America". 1810 Overture. 9. Northwestern University: 4. 1980. Retrieved 2022-02-14 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "Chinese Music; official publication of the Chinese Music Society of North America. Vol. 2-, No. 2-, June 1979- (Our holdings of this newly entitled journal are complete, from the first issue.) This quarterly journal supersedes the Chinese Music General Newsletter, also the Chinese Music Society of North America's official organ. The society itself is based in Woodridge, Illinois and represents a much larger concern than publishing the journal which is to serve as a "forerunner in research and promotion of Chinese music." First, the organization maintains a functional traditional Chinese orchestra and offers many lecture-demonstrations on the music of the Chinese with the orchestra. Second, it published cassette recordings of Chinese music. Articles in the periodical are generally on Chinese composers, genre, instruments, and theoretical principles -- with all transliterations via the Pinyin system. Music Index issues to cover this journal are not available yet."
  Here is more information about 1810 Overture:
  - Campana, Deborah (March 1991). "Information Flow: Written Communication among Music Librarians". Notes. 47 (3). Music Library Association: 692. ISSN 0027-4380. JSTOR 941855.
    The journal notes: "Among the more notable music library newsletters are: ... NU Quarter Notes (formerly, 1810 Overture; Northwestern Unviersity; 1972– ); ... Although such publications are produced for the benefit of local users, there is what might be described as a meta-audience of librarians at other institutions who subscribe to these newsletters to keep apprised of their sister institutions."
5. Stone, Ruth M. (2017). The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music: The United States and Canada. Vol. 3. London: Routledge. p. 953. ISBN 978-1-351-54414-6. Retrieved 2022-02-14 – via Google Books.
  The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In Chicago, the Chinese Music Society of North America publishes a semischolarly magazine, Chinese Music, and provides performances by a modern-style Chinese orchestra staffed by a mixture of Chinese and non-Chinese musicians."
6. Coverage of the journal:
  1. Knysak, Benjamin (June 2018). "Musical Information in a New Land: Immigrant Music Periodicals in the United States Part Two: 1931–2000". Notes. 74 (4). Music Library Association: 561. ISSN 0027-4380. JSTOR 26781920.
    The article notes: "Chinese Music General Newsletter; from 1979: Chinese Music. Woodridge, IL, 1977–2010. Grove US1089. 33 vols., quarterly. English (Chinese). Widely held. Published in English by the Chinese Music Society of North America, this journal aims to disseminate information on Chinese music to an audience broader than the Chinese migr population alone. The journal published research articles on Chinese instruments, musical styles and genres, compositions; musical news from China and of Chinese musicians in China and abroad; and reviews of books and recordings."
  2. Post, Jennifer C. (2004). Ethnomusicology: A Research and Information Guide. New York: Routledge. p. 87. ISBN 0-415-93834-1. Retrieved 2022-02-14 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "336. Chinese Music. 1978-. Chinese Music Society of North America. Woodridge, 111.: Chinese Music Society of North America. Quarterly. ISSN: 01923749. An international refereed journal published quarterly by the Chinese Music Society of North American and devoted to the study of the music and acoustics of China, and their relationship to those of other regions of the world. Includes articles, news, and book and recording reviews. Table of content and abstracts: http://chinesemusic.net/CM_Journal.html."
  3. 杨宇 (1981). "北美洲中国音乐研究会编辑出版《中国音乐》" (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-14. Retrieved 2022-02-14 – via CNKI.
    The article notes: "Chinese Music, edited and published by the Chinese Music Society of North America, is an international academic quarterly journal on Chinese music, published in March, June, September and December every year. The purpose of the journal is: to introduce and disseminate Chinese music to the world, and to promote people's correct understanding and understanding of this excellent music culture system. The content of the publication involves; music theory, compositions, acoustic studies, classical music, local music, opera, musical instruments, musicians, news reports."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Chinese Music Society of North America (simplified Chinese: 北美洲中国音乐研究会; traditional Chinese: 北美洲中國音樂研究會) to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep per GNG – Thanks to Cunard for finding new references. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted. VocalIndia (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the opportunity to discuss Cunard's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment on sourcing from @Cunard. I appreciate their effort and am genuinely interested in the minutiae of notability here (clearly, I need to go outside more). I was rather surprised by the volume of sources at first glance given the WP:BEFORE I did, but I would argue that further examination suggests that several of these are inadequate to support GNG.
- N 1 fails WP:INDEPENDENT: Yuan-yuan Lee is an officer of the CMNSA, see e.g. here, where she is listed as a contact.
- Y 2 qualifies as reliable, independent, and significant coverage. It also decidedly weighs against considering Chinese Music as a reliable or independent source in itself, raising further questions on how we are to evaluate its inclusion in some libraries' catalogs when it comes to notability.
- ? 3 — I am personally very hesitant to describe a 2004 grant description as qualifying. A few things to consider (n.b. Google apparently combined NEA's annual reports from 2000 to 2004 into a single file; the CMSNA grant is from 2004, not 2000):
  - Is it significant? The first paragraph is a description of the organization; the remaining two describe the $10,000 grant's application to a single concert given in November 2004.
  - Given that the grantor-grantee relationship is inherently financial, do we consider this truly independent coverage? The NEA presumably takes the provided information from an applicant itself and evaluates based on provided materials. How does that square with the requirement that "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"?
- N 4, based on the snippet visible in Google Books and the explanatory article talking about the source itself, fails SIGCOV. As Campana's article notes, 1810 Overture is a library newsletter, which tend to "provide local clientele with... guides to using specific collections. Many also serve as bibliographic instruction tools, reporting on reference materials and other new acquisitions..." — in other words, barring evidence to suggest the snippet we can see is more substantive, it looks to simply be a paragraph describing the journal's addition to the library catalog. A library's acquisition of a journal does not make it notable, and the only reason we see these sources is precisely because the journal is functionally never mentioned anywhere else or cited in related academic research.
- N 5 is trivial coverage. WP:ORGDEPTH specifically excludes "listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." If the Garland Encyclopedia had provided something like an "entry giving an overview of the history of an organization" that would qualify.
- ? 6. Specifically, N for sub-sources 1 & 2 — these merely describe the journal's presence in library catalogs with a basic description of content. ? re: Sub-source 3, which lacks relevant citation data such as the place of publication; further digging suggests it was in a magazine called 乐器. Note that the only other listing I could find for the article, also from CNKI, gives the download as a single page; I suspect this is similarly a mere description of the journal without substantive coverage, but I cannot access CNKI with my non-mainland Chinese account (this, accordingly, represents a verifiability issue, one of the many frustrating aspects of CNKI).

At best, it seems, we are left with one conference paper that does examine the group in significant detail, a paragraph from a 1981 magazine in China that gives a short description of its journal, and a paragraph from the NEA describing a 2004 grant to the organization (the other two paragraphs detailing the grant itself and a concert put on). Given this, I am having trouble envisioning what sort of article this could even look like. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the sources. I have stricken the Yuan-yuan Lee source. I think the other sources contribute to notability. The National Endowment for the Arts needed to evaluate the Chinese Music Society of North America's request for funding so they conducted research and analysis into the group so I view their coverage as independent. I have provided one more source below. Cunard (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Here is another source about the subject:
杜庆云 (February 1992). "让世界更好地了解中国也让中国更好地了解世界——记"中国音乐对二十一世纪音乐的影响"国际研讨会" . People's Music (in Chinese). Chinese Musicians' Association. pp. 32–33. ISSN 0447-6573. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21 – via CNKI.

chinese text causing side scroll
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article notes: "当值“北美洲中国音乐研究会”成立十五周年之际，由“北美洲中国音乐研究会”和“美国大学音乐学会”等六个美国音乐学会共同举办的以“中国音乐对二十一世纪音乐的影响”为主题的中国音乐国际研讨会，于年月日至日在美国芝加哥隆重召开。来自世界五大洲的八百多名音乐家聚集于芝加哥古老而豪华的帕尔莫大酒店，就“中国音乐对二十一世纪音乐的影响”进行研讨和学术交流 ... 配合填补研究中的空白的讨论，北美洲中国音乐研究会出版了《中国音乐及管弦乐法—原则与实践》一书。对广义和声学与中国音乐及管弦乐法的关系作了深入浅出的讨论‘并从音响学的角度帮助现代作曲家了解中国音乐。此书在会议期间一售而空。它的内容方法与观念都很新颖。 ... 北美洲中国音乐研究会年正式成立后，在其特定的历史及政治背景下对中国音乐的介绍和研究在美国及世界许多国家已经产生了深远的影响。同时，这个组织卓有成效的工作已使它获得美国联邦政府及所在的伊利诺斯州政府的财政支持和法律地位的认可，目前它已成为在美国联邦政府注册的世界性非牟利机构，它拥有向世界各国发行的英文季刊 (Chinese music) (ISSN 0192–3749)，作为研究结果及全世界中国音乐活动的发表园地。同时它还拥有自己的民族管弦乐团，并于年又成立了“北美洲中国音乐研究会丝竹乐团”。

chinese text causing side scroll

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article notes:

"当值“北美洲中国音乐研究会”成立十五周年之际，由“北美洲中国音乐研究会”和“美国大学音乐学会”等六个美国音乐学会共同举办的以“中国音乐对二十一世纪音乐的影响”为主题的中国音乐国际研讨会，于年月日至日在美国芝加哥隆重召开。来自世界五大洲的八百多名音乐家聚集于芝加哥古老而豪华的帕尔莫大酒店，就“中国音乐对二十一世纪音乐的影响”进行研讨和学术交流
...
配合填补研究中的空白的讨论，北美洲中国音乐研究会出版了《中国音乐及管弦乐法—原则与实践》一书。对广义和声学与中国音乐及管弦乐法的关系作了深入浅出的讨论‘并从音响学的角度帮助现代作曲家了解中国音乐。此书在会议期间一售而空。它的内容方法与观念都很新颖。
...
北美洲中国音乐研究会年正式成立后，在其特定的历史及政治背景下对中国音乐的介绍和研究在美国及世界许多国家已经产生了深远的影响。同时，这个组织卓有成效的工作已使它获得美国联邦政府及所在的伊利诺斯州政府的财政支持和法律地位的认可，目前它已成为在美国联邦政府注册的世界性非牟利机构，它拥有向世界各国发行的英文季刊 (Chinese music) (ISSN 0192–3749)，作为研究结果及全世界中国音乐活动的发表园地。同时它还拥有自己的民族管弦乐团，并于年又成立了“北美洲中国音乐研究会丝竹乐团”。

From Google Translate:

On the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the founding of the "Chinese Music Society of North America", six American music societies including the "Chinese Music Society of North America" and the "American University Music Society" jointly organized the "Chinese Music to Twenty-One" The International Symposium on Chinese Music with the theme of "The Influence of Century Music" was held in Chicago, the United States. More than 800 musicians from five continents gathered in the ancient and luxurious Palmer Hotel in Chicago to conduct seminars and academic exchanges on "The Influence of Chinese Music on Music in the 21st Century"
...
In conjunction with the discussion of filling in the gaps in the research, the Chinese Music Society of North America published the book "Chinese Music and Orchestral Music - Principles and Practice". The relationship between generalized harmony and Chinese music and orchestral method is discussed in a simple way, and helps modern composers understand Chinese music from the perspective of acoustics. The book sold out during the conference. Its content methods and concepts are novel.
...
After the official establishment of the Chinese Music Society of North America, the introduction and research of Chinese music under its specific historical and political background has had a profound impact in the United States and many countries in the world. At the same time, the fruitful work of this organization has enabled it to obtain the financial support and legal status of the US federal government and the Illinois state government where it is located. At present, it has become a worldwide non-profit organization registered with the US federal government. The English-language quarterly (Chinese music) (ISSN 0192–3749) published by countries around the world serves as a place for the publication of research results and Chinese music events around the world. At the same time, it also has its own national orchestra, and in 2008 established the "Chinese Music Society of North America Sizhu Orchestra".

Cunard (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. This source is much more substantive. I still believe the NEA and library catalog/newsletter issues are insufficient, but I leave it to others willing to go through our walls of text above to see if they agree and/or consider the above source + source number 2 in your list sufficient for GNG regardless. Cheers! WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment on hatted text: it was causing a side scroll and as I imagine the english-language translation is what's more helpful for participants here, I've hidden the original. Please revert or edit if there's another way to solve @Cunard:. Star Mississippi 15:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 02:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment There's a rather substantive thesis by K Jeffcoat in GScholar, three pages in. I think with the other sources above, it's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This is the same as source 2 described above, I believe. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Liz 05:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Robert Lifmann

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the revised inclusion guidelines for WP:NCRIC as his appearances were only in the ICC Trophy. Can't see much in the way of other sources to establish wider WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Fails the updated cricket guidelines. An internet search does bring up a few hits, but I'm not sure there's enough for a GNG pass. There may be something in Wisden on his about his ICC Trophy performances though. As he played in two tournaments, I'm not sure there's a suitable redirect per WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete. In Delpher, his participation in games and results are actually covered extensively, well beyond an occasional international tourneer. That said, I did not see any in depth coverage. gidonb (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC as played in an ICC Trophy final in 1986. Did the nominator read the article? They need to familiarise themselves with cricket notability guidelines. 2405:6E00:2689:B264:4984:2052:578B:2489 (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment. Hardly notable as a standalone though is it, does nothing to satisfy GNG does it. And having looked up your IP location, if you're the user I think you are, sign up again. I was never a fan of what happened to you and thought you were a great editor. StickyWicket (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Cylon Controls

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage appears limited to primary sourcing or trivial articles on acquisitions, etc. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete (or failing that, redirect/merge as a single sentence in the ABB article; alongside similar acquisitions). The subject here is, with the greatest will in the world, an otherwise ROTM small company. The available coverage (found during WP:BEFORE and added in recent edits) does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:SIGCOV (being of the usual "got funding / was acquired" coverage that is routine for any similar business). That this article was clearly created by an SPA/COI user (for overtly PROMOtional reasons) does not help. Guliolopez (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. There's no actual information on the company or what they do, just on their customers. Very promotional. ArdynOfTheAncients 8:45, 10 February 2022

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yelena Kulikova

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails all criteria for WP:NTENNIS as the 25K win occurred in 2008 and NTENNIS only presumes notability for 25K wins that occurred in 2007 or before. I have searched "Елена Куликова" as well as "Elena Kulikova" and "Yelena Kulikova" but not managed to find any significant coverage. The references currently used don't offer any detail either. WP:GNG cannot be achieved through simply linking to results listings on tournament websites. Spiderone 21:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - WP:GNG hasn't been demonstrated and WP:NTENNIS not met. This is becoming a pattern with this user unfortunately. Jevansen (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment - If the character of that article is so significant, why is there no article about her in the Russian-language Misplaced Pages?Faskat (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Faskat
Delete Does not meet GNG, which is a requirement to keep articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. While the keep !votes outnumber the deletes, they aren’t exactly convincing. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Manuel Álvarez (sprinter)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alvarez does not meet the inclusion guidelines for Olympians. We also lack any sigcov. Let alone the multiple examples of indepdent sigcov that is required by GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep multiple medal winner, including gold, therefore meeting WP:NATH and WP:SPORTBASIC. Lugnuts 09:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Both of these standards require that any article have multiple sources to show notability. There are no sources on this article that meet the standards of Sigcov. I am also not convinced that every medal at the level of a country that is called "silver" or "gold" is actually a sign of notability if it is won. We have to show that the competition in question actual received some actual reliable source coverage, which has not been shown for any of the competitions where this person won a medal. Votes like this by Lugnuts are exactly why many of us want to scrap Sports SNGs entirely, because they are being consistently abused to try and keep articles without Sigcov. In the case of Lugnuts he has been told over and over again that these SNGs require that subjects for which we create articles also pass GNG, and he has consistently ignored this advice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep meets WP:NTRACK. Likely to be non-English coverage at the time which will now be inaccesible. NemesisAT (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep although I was unable to find anything to meet WP:SIGCOV, I agree with NemesisAT that this meets criteria 1 of WP:NTRACK because Alvarez did complete in the Olympics: . Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sport notability guidelines say that the subjects must still have Sigcov. They are not an end run around the requirements of GNG, just a suggestion of what is likely to meet GNG. Plus there is currently a supported by the mass number of people participating proposal to drop the Olympics prong from athletics guidelines in line with the decision last year that only Olympic medalists are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  - We should make our decision based on what WP:NATH currently says, not on what it might say in the future. If NATH changes, we can re-visit. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: while we're at a numeric keep, the votes aren't in line with current policy requiring significant coverage. Relisting for time to find said coverage
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep meets NTRACK, also won other medals. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Provisional delete unless significant coverage can be provided (I have a hard time finding anything, as results often lead to Manuel Álvarez Bravo...). A few editors enthusiastically sustaining a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to ignore the requirement for significant coverage (which is what NTRACK is supposed to be an indicator of, not a guarantee) does not mean that the community accepted guidelines stop applying. WP:IAR also says that rules should be ignored if they prevent improving the encyclopedia. In this case, even if NTRACK was somehow a valid notability criterion, I do not see how having a two sentence article, basically copied from databases, and with no indication that anybody has or will spend time improving it up to encyclopedic standards, is a good thing; and thus it would be an improvement to the quality of the encyclopedia to remove sub-standard content. Thus delete per the already mentioned failure to find content which would be sufficient to sustain an encyclopedic article (this is the whole raison-d'etre of the notability guidelines); the blatant fail of WP:NOTDATABASE (as an article based entirely on databases, well...); and WP:IAR as argued. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Topic fails NTRACK as it lacks the level of coverage (= GNG) mandated by that guideline ("The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline"). If there is likely to be non-English coverage, then the article is to be created after this is found, not before. Avilich (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 21:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Meets WP:NATH (a.k.a. NTRACK). I am not convinced by the interpretations above that seek to effectively undermine NATH. Why does NATH exist if it says nothing different to WP:GNG? Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've added some citations to the official 1933 IOC report, which is conveniently digitally archived, about his 1932 Olympics appearance. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  - Those sound like primary sources to me, which we are not supposed to be using to build articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

NATH is only a predictor (not a very good one at that) of whether GNG will be met, it's not an actual standard of notability. And the sources you added are primary, they don't confer notability. Avilich (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have followed WP:PRIMARY appropriately. Any concerns about edits to the article can be tackled on the article. Above, it was suggested that I do not see how having a two sentence article, basically copied from databases, and with no indication that anybody has or will spend time improving it up to encyclopedic standards, is a good thing: well, I, a random new editor to this article, took a bit of time, and I've now expanded the article a little, without copying from databases. I didn't do a lot, but Misplaced Pages is a work-in-progress and this article can improve over time. Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The concern is notability, not regular editing, and the status of the article and sources have not changed since the beginning of the AfD. Avilich (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Significant achievements in major sporting events, and deleting this would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Wehking

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps at senior fully-pro level. BlameRuiner (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--dashiellx (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete, Has not played on professional level, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Alex-h (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom.-Imcdc (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

DeRuosi Nut

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP Source are minor mentions or not independent. Lack of in-depth coverage in RS. MB 20:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MB 20:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MB 20:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Coverage is insufficient — passing mention in a local paper (here) and an article in an industry outlet here. Note as well that the page has been WP:REVDEL'd because of copying from the former source. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

KEEP. Coverage is sufficient — passing mention in a local paper (here) and an article in an industry outlet here. Note that there are proper sources in this page so if we can make correction to those who are not proper and keep the proper. Help me make this page because it does not have to be deleted if some sources are okay. KingCreation (KC)(talk, contribs) 08:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)KingCreation (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. although it has some minor press, it is not enough coverage to meet notability. The WP:GNG says you need significant coverage, so 6 citations is hardly significant. Caphadouk (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Seems like WP:MILL. — BriefEdits (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
KEEP. DeRuosi Nut is a San Joaquin county, privately held company like many others in the county it should have a place on wikipedia. DeRuosi Nut is mentioned on the pages: San Joaquin County, California & Escalon, California as it already holds multiple placements on the platform using the same imagery and a similar purpose. DeRuosi Nut seems WP:N. This page has notable sources that are significant. In comparison to neighboring companies (geographically) an in a similar industry such as The Wine Group. The Wine Group only has 2 sources given and only one of the sources is an active link to a real article. The DeRuosi Nut page shows to be more notable than surrounding companies with multiple live, in-depth articles regarding the company DeRuosi Nut. KingCreation (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Liz 19:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Amalthea (technical summit)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising for a rather recent started series of meetings (started in 2010) by a very recently started university (started 2008). Many sources are not about the summit or are just passing mentions. So besides the advertising, I doubt about notability. Re-created article after normal procedure. The Banner talk 19:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete sourcing comes entirely from the event organizers, no independent coverage at all. Anton.bersh (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment It isn't clear to me that the sourcing all comes from the event organizers. The references are PDFs that seem to have been downloaded to the IIT Gandhinagar system - perhaps through the library? Some of the articles, like this one state that they are from The Times of India Ahmedabad. That said, I have no idea whether local editions of the Times of India are considered RS. It's also a shame not have to have the original citation in the article (with effort, that perhaps could be done). I do think it would be a good idea to remove unreferenced info, reducing the article to only the facts that can be sourced. Lamona (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I do not think the article you linked to provide any useful coverage. For one, it quotes the whole paragraphs from a certain lecture, so it would hardly be considered independent. Secondly, I don't see any coverage of the event in general, just one particular lecture. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep I usually vote Delete on techfests but this one was actually covered by quite a number of reliable sources, including several articles in TOI and DNA. Don't get me wrong, it needs a lot of copy-editing, it is promotional and full of trivialities, most of the facts aren't sourced and the ones that are deserve better citation etc. However, notability-wise I think it has decent coverage to remain a short article and I don't think Blow it up and start over is the right solution in this case. --Muhandes (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Could you please specify which sources you consider reliable independent and in-depth? Anton.bersh (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
This and this are for sure reliable secondary sources. Together with the rest I think they provide enough coverage to establish notability for a short article. --Muhandes (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
delete after looking over the references that have been provided I'm of the opinion that there is only extremely trivial, indirect coverage of this tech summit. Like the one from The Times Of India is literally one paragraph in an article about something else that doesn't even discuss the summit because it's about "The Speech Jammer", whatever that is. Whereas, the "DNA article" appears to be a self published promotional puff piece. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Bal Vikash Secondary School

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG The Banner talk 19:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Prior result was no consensus, so a soft delete would not make sense at this stage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to List of schools in Nepal. nirmal (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete as this school clearly isn't notable. I couldn't even find any trivial information about it. In the meantime I'm not sure redirecting the article is a good option since the target article doesn't contain any information about the school, likely never will, and obviously it doesn't serve any kind of encyclopedic purpose to redirect the name of the school to something that lacks any information about it. So I'm going with delete instead of redirect. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - Hatchens (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ishell Vaughan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible UPE, created initial with junk SEO blog references, moved to draft but than moved back into mainspace. No visible pass of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. nearlyevil 665 18:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, the article doesn't go against the politics of significance. It is as short as possible, no advertising or anything like that. There could be more references, but there are no forbidden black hats here. Just an article about a person. There are works with famous musicians and links to them. Why this article does not belong on Misplaced Pages I do not understand. Ilyadante (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)ilyadan

It's unwise to move draft articles on people of questionable notability out of Draft space before they get the Articles for Creation stamp of approval. They are often subject to speedy deletion but here you can argue why this article should be kept and you have some time to improve the article. Liz 01:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete, tried to give the author a chance to improve this in draft. None of the material supports even basic biographical information. I was unable to find anything additional; most hits are PR or blogs. Please note that subjects do not inherent the notability of people they may or may not have worked with. Kuru (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - would probably have been wise to leave it in draft and go through AfC, where experienced editors could have helped develop it. But this does smell a bit of UPE/COI editing, so that could be the impetus of forcing it into the mainspace. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 22:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep - Passes WP:GNG, in-depth coverage in Vocal along with coverage in WRDE, Daily Voice, HotNewHipHop (1st), (2nd), and XXL Magazine. They possibly also pass WP:DIRECTOR bullet 3. Merkedeke (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth: Vocal - User-generated blog. Not reliable; WRDE - dead link. Unable to find original; Daily Voice - unreliable site, also only mention of the subject's name, not SIGCOV; HotNewHipHop - Trivial mention, unreliable blog-like site; XXL Magazine - no SIGCOV, just a promotional-sounding video clip announcement; WP:DIRECTOR bullet 3 - Highly unlikely. nearlyevil 665 17:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete - no serious third party coverage. Refs read like paid publicity pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - The article is clearly created by a paid author. All sources are paid. Definitely this character should not be on Misplaced Pages Faskat (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Faskat

I just found something interesting. Absolutely the same articles, clearly created in order to inflate a character out of nothing. If you look at the original article, it becomes ridiculous, he worked in collaboration with BMW, Lamborgini ... Very funny. If I have Calvin Klein underpants, does that mean I work with Calvin Klein?Faskat (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Faskat

References

The result was no consensus. nomination is vague wave, other delete argument is about current state of article, ignoring potentials sources. On the other hand, the keep arguments posit liklihood of sources plausibly, but I don't think with strong enough evidence for a clear "keep" consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Baldacchino

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability _Signed, Pichemist 17:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. _Signed, Pichemist 17:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. _Signed, Pichemist 17:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete article lacks sufficient sources to pass GNG, and no other such sources have been identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Potential keep -- As I read the article he was a (perhaps the) leading archaeologist of Malta of his time. In view of his dates, we should not expect there to be a great deal about him on the Internet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Sources: a mention in book "sailing to the edge of time", listed in Contemporary Medicine in Malta, mention in Sword of Allah. Articles:

Baldacchino, J.G. and Evans, J.D., 1954. Prehistoric Tombs near Zebbug, Malta. Papers of the British School at Rome, 22, pp.1-21.

Baldacchino, J.G. and Dunbabin, T.J., 1953. Rock Tomb at Ghajn Qajjet, near Rabat, Malta. Papers of the British School at Rome, 21, pp.32-41.

mentioned multiple times in Għar Dalam : a shelter for WWII refugees and military fuel supplies

That's all I could find, but being active in the early-mid 1900's in a country that was considered minor ... well, we need access to more old archeological journals. Lamona (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. Liz 06:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Mar Saba letter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page duplicates parts of Secret Gospel of Mark, except the same content on that page is better organized, better cited, and more detailed. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

obvious merge though it can be argued which way it should go. Also, the present article is sketchy, but the Secret Gospel article is insanely detailed, way past what it reasonable in an encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep This article was created in 2006 as a split from Secret Gospel of Mark. The latter article has been considerably expanded since then, which has led to duplication of content. I think it's reasonable to keep these as separate articles; the thing to do is merge the information about the letter's discovery and the authenticity dispute into this article, leaving the Secret Gospel article to focus on the alleged contents of the gospel and its interpretation. Dan from A.P. (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep, as it appears to be a noteworthy subject, content just needs to be merged in from the other article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
comment Commenters should be aware that there is no Secret Gospel of Mark outside the Mar Saba letter; the latter is the only testimony to the former. Mangoe (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep - the Secret Gospel of Mark article is 140.53 kB and the WP:SIZERULE guideline suggests splitting an article at 100 kB, so the Mar Saba Letter article seems like a natural WP:SPINOUT with the Mar Saba Letter article describing the discovery and the Secret Gospel of Mark article discussing the contents and theological implications - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. No sources were given, and no reasons were give as to why sources should exist. Therefore the fails GNG argument is far stronger. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hitlist UK

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a television chart show, not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, television shows don't get an automatic notability freebie just because they exist(ed), and have to be the subject of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in sources independent of themselves to demonstrate that they are or were notable -- but the closest thing to a source here is a YouTube video clip of an episode of the show. There are absolutely no footnotes illustrating any third party coverage about the show, and the article has been flagged for that problem since 2008 without resolution.
As I don't have access to any database in which I could locate British media coverage from the 1990s, I'm willing to withdraw this if a UK editor can locate better sourcing to salvage it -- but we don't keep badly sourced articles just because it's possible that better sourcing might exist somewhere, we keep badly sourced articles only if somebody actually demonstrates that better sourcing definitely exists. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Weak Delete Does not cite any sources, but can be easily to add some by researching. TzarN64 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more time to find potential sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

KEEP, there is no citation on the page, but there are enough sources (should be cited) found via Google search. Instead of deleting the article, it should be KEEP for improvement. -NeverTry4Me - TT page 06:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not enough to just say that there are other sources out there. Not everything one might find in a Google search is actually a reliable or notability-supporting source at all, so we don't keep unsourced articles just because somebody says sources exist — you have to show several specific examples of what you found, so that we can evaluate whether they're actually any good or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

KEEP Needs sources, but I'd give the creator/editors a heads up on needing sources and come back in a month.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Looking at everything, I have to say this is a non-notable, automated and incomplete clone of official UK Singles Chart shows like UK Top 40 (TV series) or The Official Chart. Really no WP:N to be found outside of how they managed to wiggle around Official Charts Company copyrights for twenty years. Nate • (chatter) 17:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 01:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Harshvardhan Joshi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable mountaineer, who has climbed mount everest once, most of the news references are routine. No RS, fails Anybio Mikekohan (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mikekohan (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: the nomination is Mikekohan's seventh edit ever, with flawless knowledge of the deletion process, including both talk page notices and deletion sorting. Geschichte (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: It seems like the nominator Mikekohan, created the account with a lack of information regarding the guidelines. No edits were made apart from nominating two pages for deletion without checking the available sources about the topic. Multiple sources related to the topic and clearly passes the WP:GNG. Bigstory1 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep: The page can be improved further, but the subject is well-sourced to make reasonable claims of notability and certainly passes WP:GNG. Google News gives the sources for the person over a long enough period of time from reliable domains. e.g. Independent UK, Times of India, INDIA TV, ABP News, The Himalayan Times.

And to be fair, it feels Mikekohan nominated the page for deletion just for underlying reasons (depending on the intent), not legitimate problems with the article. UphillAthlete (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E. A WP:TOOSOON case. But, apart from this, I'm in total agreement with Geschichte's comment. Also, there is a high possibility about the existence of "two" factions in this AfD discussion that are simultaneously trying to influence the outcome and it surely includes the nominator, a SPA. Closing admin should take a note on this. - Hatchens (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete In the absence of a specific NSPORTS criteria, evaluating sources based on WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG shows nothing that's independent. Vice article is very long, but exclusively depends on the subject himself for all the photos and the details. Hindu article is just an announcement or a brief interview at best. ToI pieces are, as usual, interviews re-framed as articles. Same goes for the sources found above as well as others from searching. Hemantha (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against renomination. While a simple hatcount of !votes might indicate a "keep", several editors either did not make policy-based arguments in support of their view or made arguments that the extent of sourcing was unclear with respect to passing WP:NCORP. In the absence of a consensus on the state of sources presented, there is no consensus to keep nor delete. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

GomSelMash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, no RS, all signs of undisclosed paid editing. Mikekohan (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

~~Are You seriously? look please to the Russian and Belorussian varian of this page Ilyadante (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)ilyadante~~ Blocked as a sock Star Mississippi 21:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. Cannot find sources that would attest pass of notability. nearlyevil665 19:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- You want sours? look please here https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%88 and here https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%88 Ilyadante (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)ilyadante
Keep, nominator probably doesn't have access to sources. The company sponsored FC Gomselmash Gomel for a total of 25 years, showing its paramount importance in its region. Misplaced Pages can't have 0 articles about businesses from Belarus' second largest city of 526,872 people. Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: the nomination is Mikekohan's first edit ever, with flawless knowledge of the deletion process, including both talk page notices and deletion sorting. Geschichte (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The deletion nomination is like a stupid joke. Maybe it's better to remove Mikekohan from Misplaced Pages?Ilyadante (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)ilyadan
- This is the largest plant in the whole region. It's very funny to hear that nearlyevil665 didn't find anything about him, and Mikekohan couldn't think of anything better than to say that he doesn't know such a company and that the article is paid for. It's kind of surreal.Ilyadante (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)ilydadan

Comment: Ilyadante, the article's creator, has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, as the article has non-trivial contributions from others (and is already listed here), I removed the G5 tag. This does not mean I don't think it should be deleted. As a technically INVOLVED user I will defer to the judgments of others. ChromaNebula (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: For what it's worth, I don't agree that this article has had significant contributions, so G5 should still qualify as it was created by a blocked user. See diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=GomSelMash&type=revision&diff=1069959546&oldid=1068443192 nearlyevil 665 06:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if we can come to WP:ORG/CORP consensus rather than G5 since it doesn't seem clear cut enough to be deleted via that route
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: with both the fact that the AFD nom was the user's first edit ever, and the blocking of the first responder, it has the markings of a trainwreck. However I once again ask: Gomel is the second largest city in Belarus, and Gomselmash is the only article about a business currently in Category:Gomel. Should Misplaced Pages rather have 0 articles about businesses in this city? Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that heads up, I've tagged the sock. Star Mississippi 21:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  - I don't really understand arguing keeping the article just because it happens to be the only business with a functional Misplaced Pages page in a certain given city. Since when is that a viable substitute for actual notability as per WP:NORG? Perhaps the better alternative is to create an article about a company based in Gomel satisfying WP:NORG, which I'm sure there are plenty of. nearlyevil665 07:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    - Another article, or 10, or 20, would be ideal! My notion is that Gomselmash is indeed one of the companies in Gomel satisfying NORG, but since I comprehend no Slavic languages, let alone the Cyrillic alphabet, I admit that it's based on more circumstantial "evidence". Namely the fact that Gomselmash sponsored the city's football team for a long time, which in turn caused me to be familiar with it, a person who lives miles and miles away. How many other companies from Belarus, Lithuania, Moldova, Ukraine etc. have foreigners heard about? Not many, if any at all. So again, I personally can't present any actual sources about Gomselmash, but the nominator has not shown any sign of digging for sources either, nor has anyone else conducted a source analysis. The closest we have come is the discredited/blocked user mentioning some existing sources at various Slavic-language Wikipedias, sources not challenged by anyone yet. Claims of "no sources" are no better than WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Geschichte (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
      For what it's worth, I've conducted a WP:BEFORE to the best of my ability, and found nothing beyond routine business operation reporting. The sources in the Russian version of the article are all primary sources but one, which is a piece "Lukashenko denying the possibility of selling Gomselmash", which has no significant coverage of the subject, instead offering various quotes on why the privatization of state-owned property is a bad idea. The Belarussian article only has one primary source as a reference. I'd love to hear any countering arguments based on WP:NORG qualifying sources and I'd gladly reconsider my vote if presented with such. nearlyevil 665 19:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Weak keep per Geschichte's arguments, and from a inclusionist's perspective. This is not a WP:BLP article where sources must verify no matter what. Perhaps the article could be tagged to add English sources and/or to verify existing references — DaxServer (t · c) 12:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Weak keep the Russian page cites this article, in which Lukashenko's decision not to sell the company was apparently notable enough to make the news outside of the country. The sources of the Belorussian article are mostly the company's own website, but there is a fair bit of coverage in a couple Belorussian newspapers. Individually it is all routine but there does seem to be a good volume of it, and it indicate that the company is a significant player in its region. I don't have the time right now to look for further sources, but I will try to come back to this later and see if I can find anything else in Russian. Rusalkii (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. The keep commenters seem to be ignoring WP:BLP1E, which greatly weakens their arguments, but there is too little support for deletion to have a consensus for that. RL0919 (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Pavel Ustinov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolute insignificance by WP:NACTOR --Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 25. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep: Isn't most of his notability derived from the beating and arrest by police, subsequent political protest that it inspired, and international coverage? — BriefEdits (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete: as per nom. Why it is in AfD? It should have been put for WP:CSD directly. - Hatchens (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hatchens: Again, isn't his acting stuff pretty insignificant compared to the rest of the article which contains most of the notability? — BriefEdits (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@BriefEdits: This entity's arrest and release was a single event and we need to categorize it under WP:BLP1E. -Hatchens (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hatchens: I can see where you're coming from and as somebody not familiar with the 2019 Moscow protests, I can't really comment too much on his involvement. But the amount of coverage present (i.e. from Hollywood Reporter, the Guardian, BBC etc.) is, in my opinion, enough to pass WP:VICTIM. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@BriefEdits: If the entity is covered only for a single event then there would be always a scrutiny on its' notability as per the WP:BLP1E. But again, it all depends on how the closing admin decides on the closure of this AfD discussion. Whatever it might be - WP:BLP1E or WP:VICTIM, they are always going to have my support. -Hatchens (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, Misplaced Pages is not a place to declare anyone a perpetrator or a victim. WP:NPOV is the founding pillar of this platform. -Hatchens (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hatchens: It's a bit of a stretch to say that I wasn't being neutral. I was just synthesizing my assessment from the sources listed in the article. Even then, I stand by my original point that the breadth of the topic and coverage is enough to pass WP:GNG. — BriefEdits (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep: The nomination text of "absolute insignificance" is unconvincing since he's plainly the subject of a great deal of press coverage. That appears enough to meet GNG on its own. And the "speedy delete" vote above is even dumber, there's no cause for a speedy deletion of a sourced article that is 2.5 years old and exists on three other languages wikipedias as well. Why the Russian one has been up for deletion for two years without a resolution is probably for reasons as complicated as a Dostoevsky novel. We need not take so long.--Milowent • 22:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment - It seems that this person received a wave of hype from some notable Russian actors, as in the end being mediated only on the basis of protests.--Tysska (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. per article improvement since nomination, otherwise known as WP:HEY 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The Grove at Shrewsbury

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability. No significant coverage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete An itty-bitty mall with none of the in-depth reliable and verifiable coverage needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further analysis of the sources added after the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Referencing completely different to what it was when the article was nominated for deletion thanks to expansion by Eastmain, and I've now added a couple more references. Now easily meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep per added sources. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Bhanwar Singh Shekhawat

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability. No significant coverage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep: Meets WP:NPOL as an elected member of state legislative assembly. The article needs improvement though. Ab207 (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep as it passes NPOL. The person won and state level election, and that is enough to KEEP. Further, the article should be improved. -NeverTry4Me - TT page 06:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:NPOL. Nominator should read WP:BEFORE. Aman Kumar Goel 16:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep clear WP:NPOL pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Liz 04:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Husky Injection Molding Systems

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:NCORP. Kleuske (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete I was able to find some industry-specific coverage about a few non-routine things, mostly legal cases, but those were obviously minimally-edited press releases from the company itself. The remaining coverage has the usual problem: the coverage that is significant is not in independent or reliable sources and vice-versa. No ready ATD presents itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

DeleteThe sources are not independant and reliable. Only news covering the acquisition can be considered as quality ones.--Art&football (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Steve Clark (actor)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined an A7 tag on this, as there is an indication of importance (bit part in various 1930s films). However, I'm not sure exactly what to do with it, so I think a discussion here is best. Ritchie333 18:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete we lack reliable sources providing signifant coverage. Find-a-grave is not reliable not is IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep me the creator of the article just replaced the non reliable sources such as Find-a-grave and IMDb (which I put only as temporary sources until I find more reliable sources) with reliable ones that proves a signifant coverage. I'm also fixing some other minor problems so this article should not be deleted.Latyelcop (talk 22:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- The added sources are still not reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete, only some fan sites, no attention in reliable sources. Fram (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep, From what I can gather he didn't play any leading roles but did feature in a significant number of movies, he was featured in the book Heroes, heavies and sagebrush; a pictorial history of the "B" western players and Hoosiers in Hollywood the BFI also has a list of his film roles https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2ba24ee238 Piecesofuk (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep, I feel like there is coverage out there, which would meet WP:GNG. I also feel like some of his roles makes him meet WP:NACTOR. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep per Piecesofuk. I also found this. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep - American Film Institute source lists 240 films as actor, 2 as producer, 1 as a writer, 1 as production misc, and 1 as a stand-in. And that doesn't count his television work. He is notable. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep, as he was in a significant number of movies.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Bhargav Sri Prakash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is written like an advertisement and I have significant reason to believe this is due to large amounts of anonymous COI editing. I've opened a discussion on the COI noticeboard here

Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

All existing sources focus either on projects Bhargav has been involved in, or are just lists of people which is not notable per WP:LISTBIO. Overall fails GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete I examined the first 20 references. There is 3 interviews that fail WP:BLPPRIMARY, lots of passing mentions and several profiles, one of which is quite big but all of them are in relation to FriendLearn. There is no secondary sourcing. Nothing in Gbooks Google Scholar has an entry: but it is not sufficient to pass WP:NPROF. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep 23:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep I disclose that I have edited this article and related articles in the period of the last 3 years since i joined with a wikipedia account. I do not have COI as I have tried to explain here on noticeboard thread.

Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

My opinion is this article could be improved instead of deleted because of following reasons. This living person has gained verifiable online coverage at least since 2012. Some articles describe him in headline as "pioneer", in the body of article as "inventor of digital vaccines", and in tables as "notable and renowned Indian entrepreneur", "notable list of alumni", etc. This provides evidence for WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV. The flowery adjectives may have been copied in to the article over time which has now made it into an unacceptable promotional tone, which I think can be corrected with involvement of experienced editors. I myself have made mistake of language tone as experienced editor has pointed to me. For kind information, many students in College of Engineering, Guindy Anna University hostel and living close to campus must be editing CEG related pages, like even me when I was a student.

For consideration of others, I wish to list what appears to me as reliable sources such as; government of India journal reports, newspapers, channels that have editorial boards. Almost all of these articles are full profiles and not lists falling under WP:LISTBIO or passing mention. These are already in the article but not concentrated within first 20. They appear to me to meet WP:SECONDARY although I am not having as much experience. So, please forgive if I making a mistake here.

Lakshmipriya Nair (5 September 2020). "Digital Vaccines Build Resistance to COVID-19 Causing Hygiene-related Behaviours". Express Healthcare, Indian Express.

Cromwell Schubarth (31 May 2013). "FriendsLearn Shows Food Fights can be Educational". Silicon Valley American City Business Journals.

Dean Takahashi (17 March 2013). "FriendsLearn Wrapping Up its Kickstarter for Food Fight Game with Push into India". VentureBeat.

Naomi White (11 February 2021). "Could this video game be the secret to getting your kids to eat healthier". Essential Kids.

Sushila Ravindranath (20 March 2017). "Healthy lifestyle choices: Fooya helps change kids' behaviour towards food in a fun way". Financial Express.

Udhav Naig (3 March 2013). "Play and Learn". The Hindu.

Brian Dolan (18 December 2020). "Moderna, FriendsLearn and the legal carve-up over who owns the digital vaccine". Exits and Outcomes.

Erin Kutz (10 February 2011). "Kauffman Labs Brings In Education-Focused Entrepreneurs from Massachusetts, Michigan, and Bay Area". Xconomy.

Leila Hawkins (8 September 2020). "Can a Digital Vaccine tackle COVID-19?". Healthcare Global.

Caitlin Kizielewicz (10 February 2021). "Mobile Game that Uses Implict Learning Improved Children's Short-term Food Choices". ScienMag Science Magazine.

Rupali Mukherjee (29 December 2020). "Now Digital Vaccines to help promote healthy eating in kids". The Times of India.

"The Final Day of SRCC Business Conclave Concludes with Inspiring Lessons". DU Beat. 14 February 2020.

"An app to help children choose healthy food". The Hindu Business Line. 28 December 2016.

"Mobile game that uses implicit learning improved children's short-term food choices". ScienceDaily. 10 February 2021.

staff (8 October 2021). "History of the metaverse". Real Hacker News.

Following are potential sources which are not in the article, which more experienced editors can consider whether it can be added to improve quality

Shirlene Grace Isaac (31 May 2019). "Chennai based Parent Develops an App that gets to Fight Junk Food Monsters and Count their Calories". The New Indian Express.

Press Trust of India (25 December 2017). "fooya! Founder in patent war over digital vaccine". Business Standard.

6ParkNews Desk (6 October 2021). "The metaverse is taking over the physical world". 6ParkNews Louisiana.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

CoinYuppie (20 December 2021). "Ultra detailed metaverse panoramic perspective from the past to the future". CoinYuppie.

https://jmir.altmetric.com/details/94535502/news Pastacho (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

References

"Indian health-tech pioneer develops the world's first digital vaccine candidate for COVID-19". Times Now. ANI News. 31 July 2020.
Nikhila Natarajan (21 January 2018). "Indian start-up resists Boston firm's bid to trademark digital vaccines". First Post.
Dr Deepti Gupta (June 2016). "Escalation of Entrepreneurship in Assorted Segments in Indian Market" (PDF). International Refereed Journal of Reviews and Research. ISSN 2348-2001.
https://www.aaceg.org/notable_alumni/bhargav-sri-prakash/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment It's hard to know where to begin with this one - there are way too many references to check fully. But here are a few I did look at: 1) I cannot verify the existence of the "International Refereed Journal of Reviews and Research" (last reference). There is a web site with such a name but it has published only one issue and seems unrelated to the citation here. 2) I also can find no trace of the publication listed here as a book - which oddly has an ISSN. The foundation listed as publisher exists but I have failed to locate the publication 3) this person has published 2 or 3 articles, all with 6 or more other authors (may be normal for that field), and the 2 that I find in Google Scholar have each been cited only once. What this tells me is that it will be hard to know how notable this person is without looking at all or at least most of the references. I also wonder about the lengthy section on tennis, which seems unrelated to the focus of the article and could be summed up in a simple sentence: "In his youth he played tennis competitively." Lamona (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete There's so much chicanery going on in references. In addition to problems identified above by Lamona, punjabmirror.com, a blog, is listed as published by Bennett, Coleman and Co. There are multiple refs to scienmag.com, a content scraping site who have had their twitter account suspended. So many refs to self-published content. Two are direct wordpress/.blog sites. Screening for notable publications, all (Hindu, Financial Express, ET) are interviews or product announcements. The journal cites are to papers authored by the subject or about the product of his company; they don't even begin to satisy WP:NACADEMIC. Elsewhere on the web, Google news shows only product related hits. Most of the top search hits have been included in the article here and none appear independent. Hemantha (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

KeepThis article sure deserves an advert/POV/COI tag but I believe that we ought to make sure that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Indeed there are unreliable sources wordpress blogs/lists that must be weeded out as Hemantha has pointed out but I have found numerous reliable secondary sources that provide evidence to satisfy GNG. After trying to unravel the spaghetti in this article (incl talk pages) - and having searched and studied the background references (which I copy-paste from the existing article to make it easier for other editors to dissect this), my view is that notability of this person is primarily attributed to accomplishments as an entrepreneur and inventor, not WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:ATHLETE. I must confess that I do not understand digital vaccines but I scanned through WP:PRIMARY the official CM website

His invention of digital vaccine and fooya health game has obtained coverage from many reputable organizations (which have editors/boards and authors). There is a trail of markers of evolution spanning more than a decade. Reliable secondary sources demonstrate synthesis of positive and negative news.

The strongest WP:SECONDARY WP:MEDRS is from a peer reviewed publication of a systematic review in journal of Global Health Promotion about the product he created. It has been indexed by the US National Library of Medicine. It provides findings based on an independent analysis by that paper's authors who have disclosed no ties/COI with this individual/his affiliated organizations or the fooya app. The authors conclude that the fooya program is more effective at engaging children as a result of gamification among evidence based cardiovascular disease prevention initiatives evaluated for effectiveness in an educational setting.

He seems to have won awards/recognition from organizations such as NASSCOM and Kauffman Foundation which have been mentioned in coverage from reliable media like Xconomy and CNBC Moneycontrol, which are in the existing article.

The intellectual property case with moderna therapeutics has been covered as a result of what appears to be an investigative piece by Firstpost - a fairly reliable secondary source.

These provide further evidence of notability that is not based on WP:PRIMARY interviews or announcements.

I think it is reasonable to assume that The Times of India, PTI, ANI will not publish an announcement from an unvetted primary source. I base my logic on the view that a non notable person or insignificant organization is unlikely to gain coverage of their announcement from a number of reputable media channels, particularly in the way they describe and attribute him as 'inventor' (listed as Editor's pick article, which is not in Wiki article btw).

Sources like ScienMag or Punjab Mirror undermine the article overall. I suspect not all contributors to Misplaced Pages are aware of these sources or their reputation (or lack of).

My view is that this makes him notable for his role as creator of the fooya program and as inventor of digital vaccines in light of the global prevalence of cardiovascular disease and childhood obesity.

In conclusion I feel that this article has existed on wikipedia since November 2013, Misplaced Pages readers would lose out important info about the inventor of digital vaccines if it were deleted when vaccines innovation is significant for our current times. I urge my editors to revert COI edits/inappropriate edits and remove the unreliable references, which I can also assistInfiNeuro (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Francisca Bertilia Chaves Costa; Lana Paula Crivelaro Monteiro de Almeida (14 March 2020). "Use of Educational Technologies in the Promotion of Children's Cardiovascular Health: A Systematic Review". Global Health Promotion. 27 (4): 32–41. doi:10.1177/1757975920909119. PMID 32172651. S2CID 212729023.
Nikhila Natarajan (21 January 2018). "Indian start-up resists Boston firm's bid to trademark digital vaccines". First Post.
https://digitalhealth.med.brown.edu/news/2020-12-04/digital-vaccines
https://www.edexlive.com/people/2019/may/31/chennai-based-parent-develops-an-app-that-gets-kids-to-fight-junk-monsters-and-count-their-calories-6373.html
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/now-digital-vaccines-to-help-promote-healthy-eating-in-kids/articleshow/80010923.cms
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/fooya-founder-in-patent-war-over-digital-vaccine-with-us-117122500406_1.html
https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/chennai-based-company-launches-app-to-educate-children-on-healthy-food-choices20210306042748/
https://business.medicaldialogues.in/fooya-and-moderna-in-patent-war-over-digital-vaccine

Unless there are multiple independent reviews of multiple products or extensive in-depth reviews of the single product, they do not count towards the notability of the product creator. ToI ref is completely about the product. PTI/ANI refs are interviews, as the "he said"s at each paragraph show and not independent. Edexlive is an advertorial, so blatantly does it gush about the product. Med Dialogues is a republication of earlier PTI story which itself is about disputes about his "inventor" claim. FirstPost does seem independent and in-depth, but the focus there is entirely on his patent dispute, not himself. Hemantha (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Disclosure: I have edited this article many years ago at a time when I studied in Chennai. This person is undeniably notable. A simple Google search will give links to in depth reviews based on interviews and features by reputable channels about him his invention also company and product. The main reason for his popularity with students when I was in college and why maybe some young mission inspired young people "gush about the product" is because of the social impact purpose of the work. If you are not moved by children's health then one may look at it too critically for all the things that it is not. Children are a sensitive topic you know. If one resonates with the field and the innovation to address a clear problem in children's health then there is some thing here to appreciate I feel. I am recently a parent so this digital vaccine work is very relevant for us. Hemantha can you kindly present evidence of the EdX article being an advertorial? Not all positive reviews in media should be dismissed as paid. New Indian Express is a very reliable source if you ask me. Dismissing secondary source review reference based on writing style of the journalist is not fair I feel. I do not know what happened to fooya wiki page. One can see so many references including those listed here which show notability from reliable secondary sources for that product. fooya App has been featured on national TV channels like CNBC TV18 There are multiple reviews of the product that he created and designed. Digital vaccine concept itself is too good and it has many reliable secondary sources reviewing it like Brown University center for digital health Looks like some one has made mistake with deletion request in too much haste or maybe is this because of the huge anti vaxx pro vaxx sentiment I dont know. Kannukutty1989 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I was asked to support my claim of Edexlive article being advertorial TNIE being a reliable (somewhat) source doesn't make whatever their parent puts out, reliable. Text like Wait, what? Bhargav Sri Prakash falls in the third category. Yes, he is probably the only one in that category., This app is going to be launched in schools here in India much to the joy of Indian parents who are going to bid adieu to all their parenting worries, at least with regards to food habits of course! isn't journalistic or WP:INDEPENDENT. For an instance of Edexlive promoting a fraud, see the one on "Drone Pratap" Hemantha (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with you that not all that one reads these days in media is high quality journalism or WP:INDEPENDENT. But I am not in agreement of your use of the EdexLive article from waybackmachine to illustrate point about dismissing secondary source review from TNIE. I have not yet seen any thing online about Bhargav Sir Prakash even remotely like the one you shared about "Drone Pratap". Have you? If so please share. Today would you dismiss positive reviews about any one in Forbes, NYT, WSJ, Time magazine because of what they carried historically (which were obviously paid/PR induced-influenced promotional articles) about Elizabeth Holmes? Chances are that most people will still trust anything they see on Forbes/WSJ/NYT but bash TNIE which goes to another conversation about double standard and inequity. I think as editors we can only form and express opinion based on face value and based on what is available in front of us. Unless of course there is clear evidence to the contrary of paid journalism. Tone or english quality of journalism is not a valid reason to question WP:INDEPENDENT I feel. However as humans there is no doubt that we all seek to confirm bias. Kannukutty1989 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  Please don't keep repeating that Edexlive is TNIE. It is not; it's a separate publication. It is in no way comparable to NYT, WSJ etc all of which would carry a correction or an apology instead of silently deleting their mis-reports. Moreover this is not the place to argue about Edexlive. Your efforts would be better spent in showing WP:THREE independent, reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth. Hemantha (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Hemantha that there is so much WP:REFBOMBing going on in this article that we need to implement WP:THREE. Actually, I would accept two compliant refs from the article supporters. Note that the notablility of the person, the company, and the products are three separate things. This article is a bio and needs RS that are in-depth and about him to establish notability. That does not include interviews, company announcements, or passing mentions. SpinningSpark 10:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Olusegun Johnson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So, first of all, this would have passed as a G11 but I’ve decided to hold my horse. The are claims of the entity producing a ₦5 million budget movie titled Ija Ekun. The three sources produced, two are notable but does not mention Ija Ekun or the entity itself. In a nutshell, this entity does not pass the WP:GNG criteria. Reading Beans 18:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Reading Beans 18:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Reading Beans 18:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources in the article or in searches. What little exists is mere acknowledgment that their movie was once nominated for some reader poll type awards but these awards are not themselves notable, it did not win, and notability would not necessarily transfer from the movie to the producer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Liz 04:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Weidmüller

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP/WP:SIGCOV, sources cited are not independent, routine business announcements or commercial blurbs. The one exception is an article in Network World about their online sales system, but that does not suffice to establish notablility. Kleuske (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete: as per nom. But, I would like to ping HighKing for an opinion (not for vote). - Hatchens (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Although I am going to try and hunt down some more sources today, just a bit of background, I found this company on the German wiki and basically translated it over (Although the German article only uses primary sources from their main website). Based on the overall history of the company I figured it would be worthwhile. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep The article in its present state isn't great, reads like an ad and contains a good bit of promotion. But its a well established company that should have it's own article - Towel401 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm not responding because I was pinged - this was on my list of AfD topics in any case.`

As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

None of the Keep !voters above have returned with any references and I am unable to find a single reference that meets the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 15:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Lusaka Voice

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zambian news agency appears to fail WP:NCORP. Notability-tagged since 2013. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete Sources in the article and in searches show a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources that are significant are not reliable or not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to 2022 Massachusetts gubernatorial election#Republican primary. Sandstein 19:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Chris Doughty

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, people do not get Misplaced Pages articles just for running as election candidates -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while a candidate must show that either (a) he has preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him into Misplaced Pages independently of a candidacy, or (b) there's a credible reason why even if he loses the election his campaign would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway.
But that's not what's on offer here: it's written very like a campaign brochure (his positions on the issues, etc.) rather than an encyclopedia article, his prior career in business is referenced entirely to primary source business directories rather than WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about his business career, and the candidacy itself is referenced to two pieces of "person announces candidacy", which isn't enough coverage to make a candidate permanently notable all by itself since it doesn't establish why his candidacy should be seen as more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to 2022 Massachusetts gubernatorial election. Not independently notable. KidAd • SPEAK 00:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete, then Redirect to 2022 Massachusetts gubernatorial election to get rid of the promotional campaign literature. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to 2022 Massachusetts gubernatorial election Djflem (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to the already mentioned 2022 Massachusetts gubernatorial election. The article as it exists is very promotional and bare, plus all the other issues touched upon by Bearcat. SlackingViceroy (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Having been open for about six weeks, there is a clear split of opinion between "the article can be cleaned up" and "the article should be blown up and started over". Ritchie333 11:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Munaf Kapadia

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, largely WP:SELFPROMOTIONAL sources. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Delete as too soon. All the news articles appear near-simultaneously with the publishing of his book, and were almost certainly a publicity campaign. we need to see if the subject, and the subject's book, have lasting notability before having an article. The current one is, indeed, promotional. Elemimele (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Munaf Kapadia participants who are not banned: Dial911 (talk · contribs), Scope creep (talk · contribs), KylieTastic (talk · contribs), Gazal world (talk · contribs), Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), Celestina007 (talk · contribs), Timtrent (talk · contribs), Jclemens (talk · contribs), and SportingFlyer (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gogoi, Angarika (2020-06-30). "He Quit Google to Sell Samosas. Today, His Fans Include Movie Stars!". The Better India. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article provides biographical background about the subject: "He pursued a BBA degree in Marketing from Narsee Monjee College of Commerce and Economics in Mumbai from 2006-2009. Soon after, he finished an MBA degree from Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies. Fresh out of college in 2011, Munaf worked with Wrigley’s as a management trainee and became one of the few area Managers in the country."
2. Khan, Shazma (2017-07-18). "The man who quits Google to sell samosas". Business Recorder. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia, who decided to turn his mother’s recipe into a brand, is a 28-year-old Muslim residing in Mumbai, India. An MBA graduate, Munaf got a job offer from Google after working for a few years in India. ... Quitting his job at Google, Munaf started ‘The Bohri Kitchen’ in India with the idea of keeping his mother Nafisa busy. ... This is not a regular restaurant, it had gained so much popularity that the restaurant is one of the favorites among renowned Indian celebrities including Rani Mukerjee and Farah Khan."
3. Pillai, Pooja (2018-05-06). "Families in Food: Mother's Recipe. How a son is taking his mother's delectable Bohri dishes to Mumbai homes". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "Kapadia, 29, who was then working at Google, emailed his friends asking if anyone would pay for a traditional Bohri meal at his house in Colaba. The email got circulated and soon he had his first customer who brought her friends for a meal at his place."
4. Pratap, Rashmi (2018-03-10). "Come home to food". Business Line. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "And it is planning about positioning that has helped Munaf. TBK is a brand well known through social media. It is on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, and Munaf actively updates his contacts on TBK’s menu as well as future plans on various media. The increase in visibility and demand led him to open a kitchen in Worli from where he supplies Bohri food for delivery."
5. Lazarus, Susanna Myrtle (2015-10-08). "Plating up a meaty meal". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "The Kapadias are a typical Bohri family who love their food, and with Nafisa being a great cook, Munaf had been toying with the idea of showcasing her talent and his community’s food for a few years. One morning, while he asked her his ritual question, it struck him that what sounded so normal to him might sound exotic to anyone who doesn’t know about their food. ... This was 10 months ago, and in the short period since, their popularity has soared. Bringing their food and concept outside Mumbai for the first time, TBK has collaborated with Ashvita Bistro to bring the same experience to Chennai this weekend, with lunch and dinner menus."
6. Makhijani, Vishnu (2021-05-02). "Up close and Personal Munaf Kapadia: The Bohri Kitchen Story". The Shillong Times. Indo-Asian News Service. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia, founder of the hugely successful The Bohri Kitchen that in five years, hosted close to 4,000 home diners on weekends and at its peak in 2019 was delivering 1,000 biryanis a day across Mumbai, writes in “How I Quit Google To Sell Samosas” (HarperCollins)."
7. Mathai, Anjuly (2021-05-02). "Munaf Kapadia: From selling ads at Google to selling samosas at The Bohri Kitchen". The Week. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "The guy who quit Google to sell samosas has now written a book titled… yep, you guessed it: How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas. Munaf Kapadia’s story of starting The Bohri Kitchen (TBK)—a unique home-dining experience designed around the culinary traditions of the Dawoodi Bohra community—is the stuff of social media lore. That is because Kapadia, 31, a former account strategist at Google, not only has an engaging story to tell, but he is also great at selling his story."
8. Borah, Jahnabee (2021-04-29). "Selling samosas in a pandemic: Munaf Kapadia, founder of The Bohri Kitchen, traces his entrepreneurial journey in a new book". Mint. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article provides biographical background about the subject: "Kapadia, who belongs to the Bohri Muslim community, and his mother began offering home-cooked meal experiences to guests in 2014."
9. "Munaf Kapadia details his extraordinary journey from Google to Bohra food in new book". ThePrint. 2021-04-06. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article provides biographical background about the subject: "Kapadia completed his MBA from Mumbai’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies and worked for four years as an Account Strategist at Google India before establishing ‘The Bohri Kitchen’ in 2014."
10. Pandya-Wagh, Kinjal (2017-10-09). "'I quit Google and launched a business with my mum'". BBC Online. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia runs a successful 'pop up' restaurant at his family's home in Mumbai. His mother also works as head chef."
11. Kumar, Sanjay (2017-08-18). "Munaf Kapadia: A Google exec who became a samosa seller". Arab News. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "His parents were initially apprehensive, but they started supporting him once he and TBK started getting attention from the media and Bollywood. ... Popular names in the Mumbai film industry, such as directors Farah Khan and Ashutosh Gowarikar, started visiting his home."
12. Shenoy, Sonali (2017-06-16). "Munaf Kapadia wants to take Bohri cuisine from Mumbai to Manhattan". Indulge (The New Indian Express). Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "What started out as a weekend project inviting people home to try his mother’s food in 2014, has fast expanded into a business model with a delivery kitchen and catering business. So much so that Munaf decided to leave his job at Google where he handled a $10 million portfolio to sell mutton kheema samosas instead."
13. Sawant, Anagha (2020-03-07). "For this MBA graduate mom's cooking skills helped build a Rs 4 crore turnover eatery chain leaving a cushy job". The Weekend Leader. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "In one stroke Munaf Kapadia, a former Google employee, did four things. First, he exposed his mother’s culinary skills to the world. Second, he popularised his community’s Bohri cuisine in Mumbai, third, he gave foodies a go-to dining spot, and the fourth and best part - he made a lot of money out of all this."
14. Nair, Priyanka (2017-06-08). "This MBA graduate quit his job at Google to sell mutton samosas". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "In 2015, Munaf Kapadia, an MBA graduate who was working with Google, decided to keep his mother Nafisa away from daily soaps on TV by starting a food project. The Kapadias belong to the Bohri community, who are popular for their lip-smacking thaal (a platter that consists of everything from mutton samosas, nargis kebabs, dabba gosht, kaari chawal and much more)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Munaf Kapadia to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Munaf Kapadia has received international coverage in the BBC and in Arab News. He received significant coverage in major Indian publications like Business Line, The Economic Times, The Hindu, The Indian Express, and Mint. He received sustained significant coverage in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2021.
Regarding editors' comments about the article's being spam, I agree with KylieTastic (talk · contribs) at the previous AfD that "I don't see any reason to suspect COI here as the author has been around for almost four years and has created several articles India authors and their books." I reviewed the article and found it neutrally written.
Regarding editors' comments at the previous AfD about the independence of the sources, the sources include quotes from the subject but there is also substantial commentary and reporting.
Regarding editors' comments at the previous AfD about the article not demonstrating sufficient notability, per Misplaced Pages:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Misplaced Pages article. ... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Misplaced Pages article will not decrease the subject's notability."
Cunard (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete: I have been pinged as one who offered an opinion in the initial discussion which closed as No Consensus. I am grateful for the ping, the more so since I disagree. I note that Kapadia is eight months or so further forward in his business, but, despite Cunard's analysis of the references, am not yet persuaded this is other than WP:TOOSOON. I am disturbed by the retention of the Forbes Fie of Fum non RS reference. I still see him as "I see a decent hardworking chap, either WP:ROTM or WP:BLP1E at present" (quoting from the prior discussion)
I do see coverage in RS, but of insufficient quality in my view to allow me to move from ROTM to Notable. I would opt for a soft delete because the door should be left wide open for future notability without the risk of immediate speedy deletion as a re-created article deleted at AfD. Equally, either a particular and special "thing" needs to render him notable, or a period of circa 12 months should elapse to see whether a natural notability has established for him. Fails WP:BIO / WP:NAUTHOR at present Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep Pinged to respond, I note that the BBC and The Hindu sources are sufficient by themselves to meet GNG. All the rest of the debate about promotion (what business doesn't promote?) and non-independence of other sources are irrelevant: Major RS's including the BBC and The Hindu cover him in non-trivial detail. Arguments that he fails specific SNGs and/or is engaged in promotion are non-policy-based arguments. GNG is met, full stop. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Delete — please I do not see adequate WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources totally independent of the subject optimized, there are a few but i am sorry they aren’t sufficient. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep I created it because I didn't (and don't) see how GNG isn't met. The person has been talked about in multiple, international, mainstream, reliable sources. And the coverage ranges back to 2015/2016, it's not like he appeared out of nowhere because of self-promotion in 2021. GNG is definitely met and notability has been established. Dial911 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
~~Rename to either Nafisa Kapadia or The Bohri Kitchen~~ The articles all begin and end with "my mother". What's covered in depth is the kitchen and the food, not the subject in the title. Sources aren't independent in my opinion, ~~but with Hindu and BBC in there, it's futile to argue that.~~ --Hemantha (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Changing to Delete because I was wrong to think Hindu and BBC can't be argued with. --hemantha (brief) 03:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete for what it is worth. The guy was an ex google Account strategist. All the references presented above are paid PR and nothing else. The reason the BBC picked it up, is it reached it threshold and had to reported on. It is far too soon to determine notability. The perceived notabilty of the article is being driven by a PR campaign. It seems to be something Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages editors are prone to. They simply can't seem to tell the difference between quality and poor references. They're is a base assumption that quantity means quality, and they're is an assumption that because the source is deemed to be RS, that somehow that makes it automatically good, which is fundamentally false. All these paper's accept advertising, in large amounts. It is their lifeblood and ensures their survival to report the real news. This isn't news. Its fake. The only exception here is the BBC, because it is government run, but even BBC when it sees a trend, must report on it. The company that Kapadia worked for, runs the most expansive and professional advertsing agency on the planet. All he would need to do, is turn around and ask a friend to advertise his book and business for him and that would be that. A mates help. Simple as that. The evidence is there, in the articles. They all look the same, they are essentially the same contents, reworded for different audiences but the same with same images. All of it was done to support the book release. It is classic PR advertising exercise, created using the advertising budget from HarperCollins. The very presence of so many stories about this person, opening a restuarant and then going to Harper Collins and saying I want to writ a book about it, is suspect. Aside from the curiosity factor of being an ex-google guy who opened a restuarant, which enough for story, there is nothing that not been done a thousand times before, in this year alone. It so common, particularly in the UK, it is well trodden path. It essentially about a man starting a busines and getting an article on Misplaced Pages. It is so mediocre. scope_creep 11:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep I vote to keep the article. Misplaced Pages's GNG guidelines have been more than met through the use of several reliable sources - The Hindu, BBC, The Economic Times, The Times of India, The Financial Express etc. Cunard has done a meticulous job of highlighting the various publications that have carried pieces on the achievements of the subject. Most importantly, since the self-promoting nature of the Misplaced Pages page is under question, the earliest sources cited appear to date back to 2015. The subject has been written about in various publications, for various reasons (fundraising, entrepreneurship, mental health) across a span of at least 5 years before the book was launched in April 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krunchykookie (talk • contribs) 18:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

User is a WP:SPA. scope_creep 20:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep. I can sympathize with the idea that at least some of the coverage might be a well deployed publicity stunt, and I share the annoyance over Misplaced Pages as a repository of such publicity stunts (and an active part) by wealthy and/or arrogant people. That being said, at some point, once that stunt has reached the BBC and others, things get tricky. We created notability guidelines that are hard for pure stunts to get through, but inevitably some really, really good ones will check all the boxes on paper. That seems to be happening here. I'd certainly keep an eye on the article in the future to make sure it doesn't just become a free billboard, but as it stands, it does seem to meet the SIGCOV threshold. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep All this article needs is extensive cleanup. This should perhaps be rewritten. The subject is independently subject to several reliable sources and has been discussed in much detail. ─ The Aafī 15:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete essentially advertising. That's a violation of NOTADVOCACY, a basic principle, and much more important to our survival than the notability guideline. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete per DGG. I'd like o add that had somebody tagged this for speedy deletion as spam (G11), I'd have deleted it without thinking twice. --Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: The version of the article when nominated for deletion on 29 December 2021 was short and neutrally written:
Munaf Kapadia is an Indian author and entrepreneur. He founded The Bohri Kitchen, an experiential dining concept in Bombay with his mother Nafisa Kapadia. Kapadia won Grilled reality series,(Fox Life) in 2017 and subsequently raised a round of seed funding for The Bohri Kitchen. He was a 2017 finalist of Forbes 30 Under 30 India list,
Book
Kapadia's book How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas published in April 2021 by Harper Collins tells the story of how he quit his job at Google India to turn a weekend food pop-up into a successful food delivery venture.
Positivepeace (talk · contribs) added a lot of information and sources to the article. Much this material is promotionally written. A lot of it adds good biographical information about the subject which is why I have not reverted their changes. I am fine if any other editor thinks the changes make the article so promotional that they should be reverted.
G11 does not apply because Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion notes, "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible." Supporting deletion of this article because promotional content was added in the middle of the AfD is a very weak reason for deletion. It would give incentive to bad actors who could make an article so promotional that editors would support deletion (I am not saying that is Positivepeace's intention here). There is a neutral version of the article to revert to if necessary.
Cunard (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I agree here with Cunard (talk · contribs) as I created the article keeping in mind the tone. It changed over time and may now look promotional but that shouldn't be the reason for its deletion, and definitely not G11. I hope Randykitty (talk · contribs) said that figuratively, because if they really would have deleted it without thinking twice, well... Dial911 (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Weak Keep I do agree that the references seem a bit off, but I am persuaded to weakly keep this based off the sustained (there are spikes of coverage that could be PR, but there's enough coverage outside of those spikes) and international coverage of this person. There is also a bit of coverage of his restaurant from Lonely Planet. To note, I highly suspect Postivepeace is UPE/COI, and if this resolves to a keep their changes likely need much scrutiny. Jumpytoo Talk 11:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist (despite the fact that I !voted myself), because per the post on my talk page by Hemantha something went wrong during the last relist and this therefore didn't get queued for closing. Hopefully this corrects that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

KEEP. Certainly passes WG:GNG, also there are SIGCOV. The article needed to clean up. -Arunudoy - talk 07:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. No evidence of release, or other notability. If someone wants this to work on in draft space, just let me know. Star Mississippi 01:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@AhmdAsjad: The production house has finally announced the release date of this (Ayngaran) film and it will be released on May 5 2022.

Evidence: https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/gv-prakashs-ayngaran-to-finally-hit-the-screens/articleshow/91204024.cms Kannan.529 (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ayngaran (film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unreleased film that does not meet the requirements of WP:NFF. The film began its production sometime in 2017 but delayed since then. This source talked about a possible release in Jan 2022 but the film did not release. Source assessment follows. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Ab207
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The New Indian Express	Interview with the director			✘ No
The Hindu	Movie announcement		1 para	✘ No
The Times of India		~ WP:TOI	Speculation of OTT release	? Unknown
Behindwoods	Press release	Entertainment website with no indication of any editorial oversight	Passing mention	✘ No
Indiaglitz	Press release	Entertainment website with no indication of any editorial oversight		✘ No
Indiaglitz	Press release	Same as above		✘ No
Behindwoods		Same as above	Unconfirmed speculation	✘ No
IANS feed	Statement from the film's unit		Short article	✘ No
Behindwoods	Statement from the director	Same as above		✘ No
Lyricsmall		Database site		✘ No
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}}.

As shown above, the film's production itself fails to meet the notability guidelines, thus falling short of WP:NFF. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Assessed new sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Draftify Very confusing. The article says that it was "cancelled" but also says it was released through digital distribution which would not be cancelled. One source states it was going to be moved, like many other films across the world were, because of Covid lockdowns but there seems to be no indication that this did, in fact, happen. Appears to have gotten put into limbo because of Covid and never made it out. Draftify instead of delete because there is at least a possibility that it will some day get released. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the digital release did not go as planned, hence the film remains unrelased. Would not object draftifying if any user wants to maintain the page until it meets WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete: Does not meet WP:NFF - nothing to explain why failure was significant Ravensfire (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Red Rocket (film). Liz 22:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Brittney Rodriguez

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one notable role (aka it's "too early" for this article), fails WP:NACTOR CapnZapp (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CapnZapp (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Subject has received significant coverage in New York Times and two regional papers) as a first time actor plucked off the street who received film festival recognition and awards during the film's release. Also received notability as a mural artist. This qualifies as unique and innovative per WP:NACTOR. Kire1975 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Comparable to Besedka Johnson. Kire1975 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply: I know you created the article, so please don't take it personally. I evaluated your arguments but unfortunately I don't see any strong arguments for canceling this AfD: coverage in multiple notable RSS is irrelevant; first time actor plucked off the street if anything the claim "the director uses first-time talent" can be sourced, but that does not justify this article; notability as a mural artist no source establish her notability as an artist independently of her film role; Comparable to Besedka Johnson No it isn't. Please understand you have done nothing wrong by creating the article - many people including myself have seen articles get deleted because of precisely NACTOR's two role requirement. CapnZapp (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Besedka Johnson notable outside her one film role? Kire1975 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to encourage you to bring up that question at its article's talk page. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have assumed you had a reason for saying "no it isn't". Kire1975 (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to Red Rocket (film). The notability guidelines for actresses require multiple roles in significant productions. Since whatever reliable coverage we have is almost all connected with this one film, a redirect seems the most logical choise at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure we should circumvent the criteria for article creation that way. As I understand it, the intent of NACTOR is for any link to the actor to remain red until the two-credit criteria is fulfilled. See for instance Raegan Revord (link is red), an actress that is much closer to fulfilling NACTOR than the subject of the article discussed here. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete. A couple of pieces of local/regional coverage, but the rest of the sources only mention her in passing in connection to the film. Does not meet WP:NACTOR at this time, and not enough content on which to base a WP:BLP. --Kinu /_c 19:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply - The New York Times story is more than passing. Local/regional does not make RSS not RSS. Kire1975 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read up on what we are discussing here. The reliability of sources is not relevant. CapnZapp (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a "not enough content" section on the WP:BLP policy page? The reason I created this is I noticed that athletes get stub pages all the time. According to his own count, User:Lugnuts has created over 93,000 of them. Ioan Wetzer, for example, played five friendly matches for Romania in 1942 and nobody's trying to delete that page. Kire1975 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
First off, just because other stuff exists is not a good reason to justify it here. That said, you are comparing apples to oranges here. Please examine WP:NACTOR and WP:SPORTSPERSON and take special note of the differences. (I haven't even visited Wetzer's page and I am not suggesting his article is appropriate. Nor am I suggesting it is inappropriate). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Red Rocket (film), as an WP:ATD. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 13:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply Re: WP:GNG: the subject has received more than a trivial mention in the New York Times and two regional reliable, secondary, independent sources independent of the subject. 13:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read up on what we are discussing here. The number of newspaper mentions is irrelevant. Rodriguez is presented as an actor and an artist. There are no grounds for general notability. As for acting, she fails NACTOR. As for an artist I see zero notability. CapnZapp (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply From WP:GNG that you linked to first: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This is not about "number of newspaper mentions." Kire1975 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read and understand the very next section (WP:SNG) before making irrelevant commentary. That is, ask yourself: for what accomplishments are you arguing Rodriguez is notable? If "as an actress", then WP:NACTOR applies. If "as a mural artist", then sorry, but a mere mention in passing in articles focused on the movie does not a notable mural artist make. Where is the coverage of her work and recognition thereof? If not an actor and not an artist, then what? The article offers no further suggestions. Which is why the article has ended up here. Let's be honest, the sole reason the article was created was her role in Red Rocket. It is clear to me she deserves an article if and when she gains a second notable role, not before. CapnZapp (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to Red Rocket. I don't see scrubbing this page's history as a good option here, especially if she has other acting roles in the future. KidAd • SPEAK 21:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Henry Harvin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Typical article which looks well-sourced at first, but which is rather problematic. The sources seem to be added randomly to sentences, e.g. the line about "Henry Harvin became first Educational Technology Company that provided cources on Agile and Bitcoin" is sourced to two links which don't mention this fact at all. All the sources, and most of what I can find online, are of the "5 companies which offer the best courses on subject X" type with texts clearly supplied by the company (and probably paid for inclusion in the "article" as well), not sources about the company written from a neutral or journalistic perspective. These kind of articles really are a plague and we should probably put a lot of these sources simply on the blacklist, but until then deleting them one by one is the way to go. Fram (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom's well-reasoned analysis. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 20:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Kounser Shafeeq

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that she's vice-chair of a District Development Council, which is not an "inherently" notable political office -- politicians at the local level do not get automatic inclusion freebies just because they exist, but must demonstrate credible reasons why they should be seen as uniquely more notable than the norm. But this just states that she exists, and is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, with absolutely no evidence shown of any coverage that is substantively about her, and just verifying that she exists is not how you get a local politician over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
keep : Meets WP:POLITICIAN. Has held several government office positions. Caphadouk (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

NPOL is not automatically passed by every holder of every political office that exists; it requires holding office at the state or national levels, but the highest office claimed here is local. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete Clearly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN as she has not held national or regional office. Mccapra (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete falls well short of an WP:NPOL pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Rimpy Prince

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly advertorialized article about a filmmaking duo, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The notability claim on offer here is that their work exists, and the referencing consists entirely of their work metaverifying its own existence on either their own self-published website or YouTube. As usual, however, this is not how notability is established: the inclusion test is not "the work exists", it's "the work has been externally validated as significant by third parties independent of the topic's own public relations agent, such as by winning notable awards and/or being the subject of reliable source coverage in real media". Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced properly.
Just to clarify, by the way: even though the advertorialism here is so egregious that it could theoretically be speedied G11, I don't see that as a viable approach here: the advertorialism was added entirely within the last 24 hours and the article is technically revertable back to the version that existed as of yesterday — but that version still didn't make or properly source an actual notability claim at all, so reverting the advertorialism wouldn't actually render the article keepable in the least. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete not notable, sources are just youtube videos. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn for reasoning given by Eggishorn. Suitability of article to be re-considered when Misplaced Pages has better access to sources in the .ru domain (which cannot currently be done due to current events). (non-admin closure) Singularity42 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ilya Masodov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a person who may or may not exist (which the article upfront about). All sources cited appear to be blogs. There may be more reliable non-English sources out there, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Singularity42 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(from the article creator): I paid attention to this way "Find sources: "Ilya Masodov" – news" After that, Google suggested me some distinguished and reliable sources in Russian which not appear to be blog. Most definetely. So I changed my sources to more reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litvinchechka (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment - the equivalent Russian article is quite substantial with more references. My Russian is not good but I'll look further. The apparent problem here may be more to do with the creator's English skills. Ingratis (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(from the article creator): I admit that, my English isn't great. Speaking of the article and the Russian one in particular. If you research the sources the Russion one you can see I used other resources which aren't used in Russian version. So esentially it's not total translation even though I use the main poins from there to be sure.

Thank you for clarifying. I'm very sorry for my clumsy phrasing. All I was thinking of was that it's a bit daunting to translate a long article into another language in which one isn't fluent, but (not for the first time) I missed the point. Ingratis (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(from the article creator): Is there any way to improve the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litvinchechka (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Inability to identify the real name of an author is no bar to notability, if they've been discussed in WP:RS. Compare the 18th century British pampleteer Junius (writer), who has never been identified; there's even a standalone article, Identity of Junius, on the problem. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(from the article creator): Well, with regard to inability to identify the real name of an author, we can only rely on Dmitry Volchek's words. He states and insists on Ilya Masodov is a real person. So now I guess the main question if we can trust to Dmitry Volchek's words. He's quite distinguished journalist and the editor-in-chief of Radio Free Europe in Russia. https://www.svoboda.org/contact (Дмитрий Волчек Главный редактор сайта Русской службы)
Comment. To clarify, my AfD nomination is not based on the existence versus non-existence of a person by this name. We have articles on other artists who cannot be named (see Banksy as an obvious example). The fact of the lack of provable identify could be notable. Or the artist could be notable for their work. Or both. I was just unable to identify reliable sources to support the notability. As a non-Russian speaker, I had concern about the Gorky media references, as they appear to be blogs with little editorial oversight. There's one or two other references that I can't tell if they are reliable sources or not. I'm not withdrawing the AfD yet, but would be interested to see if other experienced Russian editors can chime in. Singularity42 (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment In fact, in Russian Misplaced Pages, there are no more references than in this version, but many respected and famous people who take their place in Russian Misplaced Pages speak about the character of the article.Faskat (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Faskat

Keep The sources are good enough. The genre is rather underground. That's why not many publishers dare editing his works. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more discussion would be helpful. Wonder if we could find some bilingual contributors to expand on the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment I would ask Singularity42 to withdraw the nomination for the time being. I don't think the nomination was in any way faulty but at the time of the nomination there was no way to predict that searching for Russian sources would become almost impossible. I can see indexes that indicate there might be content about this author in .ru domains but for obvious reasons getting to those resources is, well, spotty. There's really no harm to the project in leaving this article in main space for now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to 1997 ICC Trophy squads#Netherlands. North America 16:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Marc Nota

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the revised WP:NCRIC inclusion guidelines as his appearances came only in the ICC Trophy. He coached the Dutch women's team in 1990 and 1991, but the tournaments he coached in were minor affairs. Can't find any wider sources to establish WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Redirect to 1997 ICC Trophy squads#Netherlands Per nom, fails updated cricket guidelines and not seeing enough for a GNG pass. ~~Not seeing a suitable redirect here either.~~ As others have pointed out below, there is a suitable redirect per WP:ATD Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment. I note from Nigel Ish's edit that the reference for the coaching claim doesn't even mention him coaching the Dutch women's team. StickyWicket (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to 1997 ICC Trophy squads#Netherlands per WP:ATD. No in-depth coverage, including on Delpher, hence against keep. gidonb (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Rugbyfan22, tagging you as you expressed openness to redirecting. gidonb (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to 1997 ICC Trophy squads#Netherlands. Fails WP:GNG through lack of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to 1997 ICC Trophy squads#Netherlands as a valid WP:ATD. Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and therefore warrant own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 17:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Taunton & District Saturday Football League

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local amateur Saturday football league of which the highest division is in the 14th tier of the English football system and the lowest division is in the 18th tier (we would never even consider having a Misplaced Pages article on a 14th tier local sports league in any other country)! This is in no way different to Furness Premier Football League, Mid-Somerset Football League and Guildford and Woking Alliance League all of which were deleted for failing WP:GNG and not meeting the rule of thumb outlined at WP:FOOTYN.

A Google News search only has 4 results all of which are announcements relating to the league being suspended due to COVID or resuming again following the relaxing of lockdown measures. These are all in local papers with low circulation and fails to make a case for why this league should be covered in a global encyclopaedia. Google Books doesn't seem to have anything. The Western Daily Press has 4 trivial mentions of the league as per ProQuest. I searched the British Newspaper Archive only to find that coverage was limited to the Taunton Courier. In each case, the league took up a small portion of one column on one page of the newspaper edition and the stories were trivial coverage that any local organisation gets in their local paper (announcements of monthly/annual meetings and fixtures/results listings). Spiderone 15:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep - I'm not having problems finding news coverage with Google. one two - but main story is in the hardcopy only, three. And also simple results published such as four. I didn't look beyond Google, but as it goes back at least to the 1950s, there likely be coverage in other things, like the British Newspaper Archive. Nfitz (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

My British Newspaper Archive search linked in my nom didn't really yield much in the way of coverage. The results round ups in the local papers linked above don't necessarily mean that the subject needs covering in a global encyclopaedia. Several leagues were deleted last year with this type of coverage such as Mid-Somerset Football League. Bear in mind that the Bridgwater Mercury also churns out articles with the same level of coverage for a local bowling club, a charity golf fundraiser and the local annual fun fair. I'm sure that we can agree that those three events don't need a Misplaced Pages article! Spiderone 07:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Your BNA search has an ampersand in the search term, and no results after the 1940s - I hadn't even realised the league was that old! If you remove it, and use ] instead it goes from 28 hits to 719 results. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't gone through every single hit but all of the ones that I have seen are all from the Taunton Courier and seem to be either passing mentions or very basic results/fixtures round ups. In my view, Misplaced Pages articles should have at least some relevance to a global audience and should be careful regarding WP:BIAS. This is why we don't usually need to have articles on topics purely of local interest such as the annual scarecrow trails, Easter egg hunts, school fêtes etc. even if local papers do cover them in some depth. I can see your point, though, but we may have to agree to disagree on this occasion and see what other users' views are to gain consensus. Spiderone 19:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Since no-one else seems to be commenting here, I have to vote delete for the excellent reasons put forward by the nominator. We are not supposed to be Anglospherepedia, for all that some people see that as OK, and least of all in the context of a sport which, outside Britain, is historically at least less to the fore in the Anglosphere/Commonwealth than pretty much everywhere else. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. The argument for deletion is that the content is unverifiable, and the only other opinion, although advocating for a merger, admits as much. Because unverifiable content must not be retained (WP:V), a merger is ruled out by policy, and a redirect makes little sense because the subject is not mentioned in Ó Fathaigh. Sandstein 10:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Tadhg an tSleibhe Ó Fathaigh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unverifiable. There are some references to people nicknamed "Tadhg an tSleibhe", though it is not clear what they have to do with the subject of this article. There doesn't seem to be any source for a "Tadhg an tSleibhe Ó Fathaigh". Sources used in the article, e.g. the first one, have at first glance some connection to the general topic, but when looking more closely don't seem to mention our Tadhg at all. Suorce 2 has some Tadhgs, but not this one it seems. Source 3 is an unpublished manuscript, seemingly from the 20th century, and is not a reliable source. Source 4 doesn't concern itself with a Tadhg. The same goes for Source 5. The book "The Surnames of Ireland" doesn't mention any Tadhg. And I haven't been able to find any sources (apart from Misplaced Pages mirrors and rip-offs) which mention "Tadhg an tSleibhe Ó Fathaigh". At best a non notable figure, or an article that belongs at a completely different title if this is about some notable person who is known by another name. But looking for other combinations doesn't yield anything either, e.g. this. Fram (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Well the dates in the article do not match up with Michael O'Cleary who has a DNB entry and was originally named Tadhg. The unpublished manuscript is Pádraig Ó Fathaigh's 1968 autobiography, and in fact it was published, by Cork University Press in 2000, edited by Timothy G. McMahon, ISBN 9781859181454. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect - The vast majority of the content (and effectively ALL the sources) deal with the Ó Fathaigh family generally. And not the apparently titular subject specifically. (The castle which predated the subject, the battle that predated subject by ~300 years, etc). There is otherwise insufficient reliable sources to support the text about the subject. Not to mind establishing the subject's notability independent of the Fahy family as a whole. I don't see how the available refs can support a standalone article. The content should be merged. Likely to the Ó Fathaigh. If the title is retained, it should be redirected to the same article. Guliolopez (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Fathadh mac Aonghus

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Userfied in 2009 after the first AfD, and then moved back to mainspace without real improvements. Based on one mention in a 1843 source basically, which very shortly mentions a Fathadh, son of Aengus. Lacks verifiability and notability. Fram (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. There are insufficient references here to support the text, not to mind establish or support notability. The claims to notability (in the text) are that the subject was a "nobleman" who begat other generations of nobles. Not only are noblemen not automatically notable, but (even if his offspring were notable) that wouldn't make him notable. As notability is not inherited. The claims to notability (in the references and notes and as highlighted in the first AfD) equally non-existent. To the extent that the references, such as they are, only and barely mention the subject in passing. While standards were undoubtedly different in the 11th century, and the fact that you were mentioned by name ANYWHERE was perhaps akin to being Elvis or Oprah, that isn't the standard we apply. If there are insufficient sources to establish or state much more than "this person probably existed", then there shouldn't be an article. Or they can be covered elsewhere. Guliolopez (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BASIC; it's a fair point^^^ that, with possibly a few exceptions, anyone who cannot be proven to have existed is a dead cert for the WP:V fail. SN54129 16:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
To clarify, I also oppose redirecting, notwithstanding ATD. Since the names are spelt differently, and so little is verifiable, we would be doing the reader an active disservice if we link them, as we would be implying knowledge we do not have. SN54129 15:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - per above. Even were he considered notable by the dubious argument that anyone this old whose name we know must be considered notable, this would be a case for WP:NOPAGE, as everything known about him can be put in a single sentence, and already is at Ó Fathaigh. Agricolae (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete as there is nothing supporting notability.Gusfriend (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete, Per nom. no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
REdirect to Ó Fathaigh, where he seems to be named, though the name is splelt differently. This is a person of whom we apparently know nothing but that his name appears in a genealogy. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Enemies Among Us

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no suitable reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Milo Lombardi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any decent sources. No news articles, no album reviews, no profiles in RS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The artist has been releasing music under the "NiftySax" (or Nifty Sax) stage name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.171.214.179 (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete - A profile at the reliable All About Jazz helps a bit, but Lombardi seems to have made a career as a sideman with little distinct coverage of his own. As suggested by a commenter above, he has issued some work under the name Nifty Sax, but those are self-released and note how the article already says that he is reliant on crowdfunding. He simply has not received the coverage needed for notability here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Þingvallavatn air crash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

General aviation accidents are rarely notable unless someone WP notable is on board. WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in every major national publication in Iceland. General aviation accidents in Iceland, even when there is fatalities, rarely get the coverage that this accident is getting in all major national news publications, including Morgunblaðið , Vísir.is ,Fréttablaðið and RÚV . The pilot of the plane was a well known aviatior in Iceland, with an article in the Washington Post stating "The pilot, Haraldur Diego, 49, was considered one of Iceland’s most prominent aviators ".. In short, it has had a widespread national impact and has been very widely covered in diverse sources. Alvaldi (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are articles from CNN, CBS News and the Washington Post about the crash and one of the passengers, skateboarder and filmmaker Josh Neuman. Alvaldi (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The crash has also been covereded extensively in the Dutch major publication De Telegraaf Alvaldi (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The accident and rescue operations now have around 150 stories in the top four major news publications in Iceland (Morgunblaðið, Vísir.is, RÚV and Fréttablaðið - Bundles of the articles from the first three can be found here , , ). It has been featured on the frontpage of the print edition on Morgunblaðið five seperate times and three times on Fréttablaðið (main image). Alvaldi (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete - as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Just another routine light aircraft accident, one of thousands that happen globally each year. This was a Cessna 172 and probably 10,000 of the 44,000 built have crashed since they were introduced in 1955. It is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and we aren't going to have articles on all of them. No notable people (with bios on Misplaced Pages) were involved and there are no WP:LASTING effects, not likely to produce any changes in maintenance procedures, ATC procedures, Airworthiness Directives or anything else. - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A YouTuber (who doesn't even have an article, as do none of the other victims) among the dead doesn't automatically make this story notable. sixtynine 22:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment @Ahunt: @Beemer69: 1) Run of the mills accidents don't get over 100 articles about them in major national publications over a five day span. 2) Not having an article on Misplaced Pages has no bearing on whether a person is notable or not. Non notable persons usually don´t get their name in the headline on accident articles on CNN, Washington Post, CBS News, Fox News, NPR, The Guardian, The Independent and Sky News 3) The accident happened five days ago so WP:LASTING hardly applies. Furthermore, WP:LASTING itself states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. 4) It already passes Misplaced Pages:Notability (events) as it as they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources as can easily been seen with the amount of coverage it is recieving. Did either of you go through the sources? Alvaldi (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment Did either of you go through the sources? - yes, I did, but it doesn't matter. News services jump all over plane crashes with tons of sensationalistic coverage. So what? Misplaced Pages doesn't. That is why we have policies like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING, to specifically filter out sensationalistic press stories with no lasting effects, exactly like this accident. There are around 10,000 light aircraft crashes a year globally, most years, almost all just like this one: no notable people involved and no lasting effects. We aren't going to have a breathless Misplaced Pages article on each one, in the same way that we don't report every car accident, bicycle or bus accident. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment What @Ahunt: said. It's another small-aircraft crash, which always receive heavy media coverage but are just as quickly forgotten, and this incident will be no exception. Being "one of Iceland's most prominent aviators" is a small niche that doesn't make this particular tragedy worthy of being on Misplaced Pages, especially since said "prominent" aviator does not have an article. sixtynine 00:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Can either of you point to any non-notable small-aircraft crash that has received similar coverage as this one? And claiming that the coverage about the accident in the Icelandic media is "sensationalistic press stories" pretty much makes me believe that you didn't read them. And regarding the aviator (the one that the New York Times called "Celebrated Aviator" in the headline of its article), can you point to any official Misplaced Pages policy that states that a person is non-notable unless they have an article on Misplaced Pages? Alvaldi (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't bludgeon the process - Ahunt (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and WP:LASTING. I also removed this from the Cessna 172 article with the edit summary, "most small aircraft crashes are not notable, and neither named person has a Misplaced Pages article". That applies even more to a separate article. (Please beware of WP:BLUDGEONING, as I'm not going to respond to every picked nit.) BilCat (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS Jauerback/_dude. 18:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NotNews cautions that "Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events" - ie where is the long term significance in this crash that justifies retention? As WP:Notability says "Many events portrayed by the media as major on the day they occur quickly become only a footnote". Not surprising that coverage in Iceland itself is high but where is and will be the impact further afield. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not sure in this case that WP:LASTING is a valid argument for deletion as this accident has only just happened. It does appear that fatal light aircraft crashes while common around the world are relatively rare events in Iceland attracting significant and broad coverage. There is also this AFD which probably doesnt warrant its own article either. Perhaps an alternative to deletion would be the creation of a sortable "List of deadliest air crashes in Iceland" or similar, retaining some key info about both accidents. If should something come out of the investigation that demonstrates a lasting impact, it could later be expanded into a separate article? Dfadden (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - While I think it's too early for WP:LASTING to be a valid argument, this article fails every relevant notability guideline as well as WP:NOTNEWS. - ZLEA _T\ 04:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - wp:aircrash.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - light aircraft crashes are rarely noteworthy and I dont see anything in the article that takes this over the bar for a mention in wikipedia never mind an article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Poop

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Typical "amusing" or "human interest" story which gets some attention for a very short while (in this case, some days in July 2019) but has no lasting notability. Fram (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete a very clear failure of our not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete minimal sources found and not meeting guidelines as above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep 6 Trusted sources, written like a Misplaced Pages article, not a news article, article has no bias, & not just a "human interest" story, if that was the case, all Misplaced Pages articles about criminals would be "human interest" stories . Silent-Rains (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- 99.99999...% of criminals do not have Misplaced Pages pages. Only the ones which receive an abnormally high amount of coverage or coverage over a long period of time get pages. Articles on crimes usually can't survive deletion based on WP:GNG alone; they also need to meet the stricter requirements of WP:NEVENT. Mlb96 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Multiple independent sources, seems to meet GNG. CT55555 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete A search for うんこマン on google.co.jp doesn't get me any hits connected to the subject outside of the three-day period following a mention on Tokudane! This suggests to me that he fails WP:NEVENT, as there was no lasting coverage. It was just an interesting news story which came and went. Mlb96 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- You ddin't find many results because this happened in Japan. In Japan, this received months of media attention, it even got media coverage on tv stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silent-Rains (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  - Did you read my post? I searched on google.co.jp, which is Japanese Google, so any mentions in Japanese media should have appeared. If it truly got as much coverage as you say it did, then link some. Mlb96 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. Avilich (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete as not encyclopedic and gross.Fulmard (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Slavs

and Catholic Slavs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is nothing more than a loose collection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to imply an inherent connection between speakers of Slavic languages who just so happen to be members of an Eastern Orthodox church, which is then extrapolated to claim a political-cultural-religious unity amongst all post-1991 sovereign states that happen to have both a Slavic-speaking majority and an Eastern Orthodox church membership majority (also through Azundar's self-made map that has no sources, replaced in 2021 by Klukajdrvec's self-made map that has no sources). Such generalisations ignore the non-Slavic and non-Orthodox populations within these states (Belarus is even claimed to have a non-Orthodox majority, yet is still included in the group), as well as Slavic-speaking Orthodox believers outside them. I've tried making improvements to the article in June 2020, and urged people to cite RS to prove the claims within the article. Some have been added since, but they fail consistently upon verification: the source never says what the article says – it usually just mentions Slavs and Eastern Orthodoxy in passing without substantiating the specific claim in question – or even says the opposite, such as the first source Hilsdale (2014) p. 329. Anything else in the article just says something about adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy in the purported set of countries, or is about the history of Eastern Orthodoxy in general or in Bulgaria in particular, selectively ignoring all the non-Slavic adherents and states of Eastern Orthodoxy, and non-Orthodox Slavs within Slavic-majority states. The article was created in May 2017 by User:Azundar, a permanently blocked sockpuppet of User:Bulgarian Archer who has also been permanently blocked in June 2017 for multiple disruptive edits on North Slavs. Most likely, they created this article as OR/SYNTH for reasons of language-based religious nationalism in order to claim the existence of a united identity and history where there is none (the Historydoctor.net reference is very misleading, it only talks about the Middle Ages, not 'today', and does not mention 'Ukrainians', 'Belarusians', 'Macedonians' or 'Montenegrins', nor 'nations' etc., but the article claims 'Eastern Orthodox Slavic nations today include the Belarusians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Russians, Serbs and Ukrainians.'), not in order to add encyclopedic verifiable knowledge to Misplaced Pages. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment @Nederlandse Leeuw: have you found no RSs talking about the topic? Also, I feel Catholic Slavs should also be deleted. Veverve (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I haven't. This is an arbitrary grouping of a linguistic and a religious group, which you may find in a passing generalisation in a book or two, but it's not a widely recognised ethnic group or political community etc.. Good that you mention Catholic Slavs! Yes, that is a very similar article in style and scope without good RS, also created by a permanently blocked sock of a permanently blocked user. Could we add that article to this nomination entry perhaps? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've also nominated Catholic Slavs now, redirecting it here. If I should make it a separate page, please say so, then I will. But I think it will be more convenient to discuss both in the same place as the articles are very much alike with the same problems. You can find both 'Catholic Slavs' and 'Eastern Orthodox Slavs' in books, for example Google Books, but as mentioned, they are only passing generalisations. We could also theoretically write articles about, say, Germanic Catholics, Latin Protestants, Lutheran Celts or Hellenic Mormons by that logic, but all those articles could really say is: members of group X of churches who speak languages of the Y family. (Note, by the way, that Muslim Slavs does appear to be a legitimate concept with sufficient RS backing it). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete In agreement with the nominator. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete I agree with deleting but suggest that a redirect to Eastern Orthodoxy might be an option.Gusfriend (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete -- The Orthodox article is somewhat more substantial than the Catholic one. I expect sources could be found for some of the data, but the nations are the result of the break up of the Ottoman and Austrian and some other empires at the end of WWI, or of second Balkan War or of Yugoslavia or of USSR. It assumes that these countries are linguistically homogeneous, which is not necessarily the case. It would be more useful to tackle this (if at all) from the other side, by looking at the linguistic family of Orthodox and Catholics (etc) in Europe. Germanic Catholics would not be as ridiculous as some of the other suggestions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 02:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Aravan Festival in Coimbatore

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Non-notable festival related article I2karankiran (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages page represents an important cultural event and festival in Coimbatore region. And also proper sources have been cited. So this page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccmtt12345 (talk • contribs)

Keep because it seems notable and cites proper sources. But very less information has been added in article. It should be improved instead of deleting. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Hajipur–Muzaffarpur–Samastipur–Barauni section. ✗plicit 01:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Barauni–Samastipur–Muzaffarpur–Hajipur line

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced one-liner. The Banner talk 10:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 10:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 10:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect – I don't recall why I created this. Hajipur–Muzaffarpur–Samastipur–Barauni section was created about the same time, covering the topic better. Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect per above, appears to be a duplicate. NemesisAT (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Aligarh Public School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article only contains some basic info, lacks citations and reliable sources, only contains official website of school. Fails WP:GNG Pri2000 (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pri2000 (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Pri2000 (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Pri2000 (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete: per nom. Does not meet any notability guidelines. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. North America 02:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Opontia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2021 startup. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Misplaced Pages:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Misplaced Pages:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All we have are the current sources which seem limited to press releases and their rewrites about company securing funding and doing some investments. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep: I don't think there is a problem with this article, as it contains a good number of references given its size, and the company's name has been circulated in a number of press articles, it has a profile on Crunchbase and CB Insights, and it has also been mentioned on Forbes Middle East's 50 Most-Funded Startups, and this, in my opinion, makes it achieve sufficient notability. If we are going to delete this article, then we have to delete thousands of articles like it that do not even meet the minimum standards.-Adil Faouzi (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep: 2 Articles in TechCrunch, one in Reuters, one in Harvard Business Review (Turkish version), that is pretty significant. There are several in-depth articles too, even tough mostly foreign press, they appear reliable. Caphadouk (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization. Neither the volume of references nor mentions in reliable sources are part of the criteria, the articles themselves must standalone. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 20:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This a copy-and-paste text from Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/BeWelcome_(2nd_nomination) --Geysirhead (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, if you read both carefully you'll see it isn't a copy and paste. But so what even if it was? For other editors, just be aware that Geysirhead is bludgeoning the AfD at BeWelcome, edit warring (and was blocked less than a month ago for the same thing) at BeWelcome, and now stalking and harassing me for the temerity of !voting to delete an article (that this person never edited before but suddenly is showing a deep interest) at AfD. Hmmmm .. something strange here. HighKing 18:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Copy-pasting comments (look their contributions) without researching is not ok. Please, provide some proof of your research on Opontia. And please discuss the arguments of Caphadouk and Adil Faouzi in a reasonable manner. Then, we can be in good faith again. Thank you in advance.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Well that's a pretty petty and absurd comment. If you bothered to check my contributions properly you'll see I always do my research and read all the references and search for more and often provide a breakdown of every reference and the reasons why I believe it fails NCORP. If you genuinely were commenting in good faith you'd already know that. If you wish, go ahead and open an ANI but comments like this at an AfD (and the ones on my Talk page) are not only irrelevant but disruptive. HighKing 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep: current citations are good for notability, although some news are about fundraising, most contain also info about the company and are in-depth. Chelokabob (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep: There are enough sources to establish WP:CORPDEPTH.--Geysirhead (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment The volume of references is largely irrelevant for the purposes of establishing notability so long as there exists a minimum two that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Doesn't matter if there's 1,000 references and they're all regurgitated press releases or company announcements. Also for the sake of argument lets assume (unless an obvious blog or something) that references appear in "reliable" sources - editors trying to argue that an article in the NYT or TechCrunch must automatically confer notability on the topic company are mistaken. As per WP:SIRS, each individual reference must meet the criteria - each reference must contain in-depth information on the topic company and also contain "Independent Content". None of the references in the article meet NCORP as follows:
- The wamda.com reference is a "puff profile" based entirely on an interview with the founders and which contains no "Independent Content". Fails WP:ORGIND.
- The ashaeq.com reference is a video of an interview with a co-founder. No "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from webrazzi.com is based entirely on an interview with a co-founder, no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
- This from menabytes is based on an announcement from the company to promote their raising of $20m in funding. This from reuters covers the same announcement. Both have no "Independent Content" and both fail WP:ORGIND.
- On a similar note, this from inwestycje.pl is also entirely based on a company announcement with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from bankier.pl is also based entirely on a press release, the same release that this article from pb.pl is based on, again no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- These next two, this from Forbes Middle East and this from Arabian Business both are based on a company announcement sprinkled with quotes from the executives, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from Harvard Business Review (Turkish edition) is a verbatim interview with the General Manager. A primary source, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- These last two, this from Afriqueitnews and this from adsmehub.se are both based on the same company announcement and information provided by the company (or from other interviews), no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.

For those saying that references exist that meet the criteria, please provide links to WP:THREE references which you believe meet the criteria and a short explanation on why (or in the alternative, why the reasoning above is incorrect). HighKing 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the toughtful analysis. I hope the closing admin will remember WP:AFDNOTAVOTE... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more analysis of source quality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep I find that there are enough quality sources to establish notability even though some of them are interviews. The fact of being written in big business medias and giving in-depth analysis with no promotional tone leads me to think that it deserves Misplaced Pages page.--Art&football (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which sources? BTW, you realise that even though some of them are interviews is an admission that those references fail WP:ORGIND, right? HighKing 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for further discussion of source quality, not quantity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep - Looks like there is enough coverage to be notable. Regarding and , editor before said they are based on interviews, but if they are not interviews and they dont contain too much quotations, then they are acceptable. As far as I am aware, if the journalist writes a story based on an interview then it is acceptable as it is considered verified and researched. Many articles are about funding, but I found that they contain details about the company which make them in depth. I also don't agree with editor before that an article based on an announcement is not acceptable. It is acceptable as long as they didn't just post what the company press release provided, but added their own commentary and info, meaning it is vetted and researched to be accurate. Also, the company is ranked #12 in top 50 Middle East companies by Forbes. Zeddedm (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep - The company seems comparatively new, but judging from the references available and the acquisitions, it appears to pass NCORP. As far as the definition of secondary sources per WP:SECONDARY we have "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources" which makes the references like Techcrunch and Reuters written by staffs of respective media secondary. So these are acceptable independent content and are definitely not primary sources. Only press releases and company produced contents aren't acceptable references as per WP:ORGIND. Although the article may need pruning as it mentions few unimportant events/facts like "Opontia buys and grows e-commerce brands in the CEEMEA (Central & Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa)". Cirton (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. North America 07:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Laura Beyne

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Known from just WP:ONEEVENT. The Banner talk 09:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete The coverage is all pageant focused. We lack coverage truly giving significant coverage to her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep French Belgian sources discuss her work as a presenter on a TV show starting in 2020, more than enough mention of her as a pageant winner and subsequent career. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep The article states she participated in three beauty pageant events, including e.g. Miss Belgium (Getty, Jan. 2012), Miss Universe (Getty, Dec. 2012), and there are sources that could expand the article and support WP:BASIC notability in addition to the more recent sources, e.g. BET "Laura Beyne, 19, became the second Black Miss Belgium when she won the Miss Belgium 2012 competition earlier this month.", Black Beauty Queens Have Broken Barriers (The Root, 2013). Per the Wikiproject Beauty Pageants essay on notability, Winners of the national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants are generally presumed to be notable. Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- There was an attempt to turn that into an actual inclusion standard, and it was very resoundly defeated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- A preliminary round and a main round still belongs to one event. The Banner talk 19:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep I have added new info and her credentials as a TV show host and bunch of new citations. As such she meets WP:ENT, not only with her TV host career, but also as Miss Belgium.Caphadouk (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per Johnpacklambert. WP:NBEAUTY is an essay and does not change the fact that the only "real" standard is WP:GNG - extrapolating a biography from links on photos, as above, is also WP:OR. The current coverage of her nascent TV career does not, in my opinion, establish notability. It is possible that she may become notable in the future, but I am certainly not convinced at the moment. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep this seems to be sourced enough to meet the notability guidelines. Also, she has began a career as a TV show host and such, so the notable of one event guideline does not apply. I sees sources including BET and other French sources dated to different dates. Seems good enough to keep to me. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Notification was made about this AfD at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Spartaz 17:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Gyanendra Pratap Singh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no SIG:COV about the Wiki subject. And, He/she is not a notable Police Officer as per WP:SEC. Possible CPE/COI conflict is focused here.NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep. I believe the rank of special director general of police (one of the highest possible Indian police ranks) is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC):

@Necrothesp: if this person met notability, then why not this person ? --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 02:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. So why have you nominated this one for deletion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: In here also: . Can you find something between user-user relation? Though I can not comment out yet, but I am seeing a trail. My apology if this comment hurt or disturbs you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 03:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Draftify - I agree that someone who held that rank in the Indian Police is notable but this page needs expansion to add additional information beginning with what they did or were involved with whilst serving at any of their positions.Gusfriend (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

COMMENT : @Necrothesp: There might be more valuable consensus if @GeezGod:, @Djm-leighpark:, @Hemantha: and @Onel5969: come up with their opinion here. Regards --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep As per Necrothesp, Special director general of police is a notable police rank and hence subject passes WP:GNG. Please note: Nominator is himself blocked for disruptive editing. DMySon (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

2021 Antelope Valley earthquake

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No impact Dawnseeker2000 23:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete – per Dawnseeker2000 --Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 23:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
A few rockfalls and felt by many people is not sufficient to establish notability. Mw 6.0s in California are not uncommon or surprising; rarely do they cause extreme destruction. This is just another of those events that fails to stand out due to the lack of impacts. Much of the contents can be covered in the List of earthquakes in 2021 or Walker Lane articles Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 08:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete - Just another 6.0 without any impacts Hanami-Sakura (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. Fieari (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep This was a strong earthquake. While it is true that (thankfully) no serious damage or injuries occurred, that could only be considered a miracle, since large boulders were littered all over U.S. Route 395 in Coleville, and shaking was felt all the way in San Francisco. StonyBrook (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Strong earthquakes can be relegated to the numerous earthquake catalogs that are present via the institutions (USGS, ISC, NGDC, etc.). There's no encyclopedic value in talking about shocks that were "felt at a great distance". Dawnseeker2000 14:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
There are 100 6.0-level earthquakes that happen every year. While WP clearly shouldn't cover all of them, I am arguing that this one is unique, based upon the coverage in Fieari's refs, which only happened because of the effects it had on people. If it had occurred, say, in the middle of the desert or the ocean, it would probably have gone almost unnoticed. StonyBrook (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
"Fieari's refs" aren't describing an encyclopedic event. Those news stations are reporting news to get clicks. It's their business. Dawnseeker2000 22:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
They are multiple reliable independent secondary sources with editorial control, reporting directly on the event itself in a non-incidental manner. That is the very definition of WP:GNG. EVERYTHING a news organization reports on is to obtain clicks. The things they decide will get clicks, more particularly, the things that they ALL decide will get clicks? Those things are notable for Misplaced Pages. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
They are not suitable sources for an earthquake article. Dawnseeker2000 15:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete – Not notable enough for an article. California is an active seismic area and it having M6 earthquakes are not uncommon. The quake being felt by a lot of people doesn't give it much notability. There is a lack of impacts from this earthquake to consider it notable enough for an article. Reego 41 10:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete The above source dump doesn't comply with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:SIGCOV. Just a couple of videos and short reports from the time of the earthquake, July 2021. Avilich (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete I glanced through some of the provided news articles, but agree that there is nothing notable to justify an article. Some of the info could be added to an expanded paragraph on the List of earthquakes in 2021 page.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. per evolving consensus that the reviews are sufficient and significant. Star Mississippi 01:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Dave Morris (writer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author who wrote no notable books. None of the sources listed establish any notabilty for this subject. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Disagree. Many of his works are widely-read tie-ins to very notable brands, such as TV shows The Crystal Maze and Knightmare, the board game Heroquest, or the comic/show Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. These books were published by major publishers and distributed worldwide. Kylotan (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We need a few good articles about the author to show he meets notability. Publishing books is not enough, unless also he has best sellers. If you know of any articles about him and if he is best seller, please provide citations and improve the article. MartinWilder (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That isn't actually how WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR work. Authors of notable works (which include books with RS reviews) are presumed notable. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kylotan: Just a question: given that you made no edits to either of the four articles aforementioned prior to the opening of this AfD discussion, and given that you were inactive for the past year and a half (welcome back!), how did you become aware of this deletion discussion? Pilaz (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment well his only work we have an article on is an unsourced article. The notability guidelines for writers were imagined for writers whose work stands or falls on its own, where it either is the whole of the media franchise, or at least is the starting point of the media franchise. When dealing with a writer who writers tie in material with existing media franchises, I think we need to be more careful to find coverage that is actually about the writer, and not just incidental coverage of his or her products because they tie into an existing franchise. I was going to bring up how this is at times a quite complex issue. For example, I believe we do not have an article on the person who wrote the noveliszation of the 2013 film Man of Steel. We also do not have a biography on Gwenda Bond, who wrote a 3 part novel trilogy about Lois Lane (the article Lois Lane, under the novels section has quite a bit of sourced information on this series). I strongly suspect that the latter is more likely to be grounds to create an article on the writer, in large part because it is much more clearly the work of the writer alone. OK, anyone who mentions Lois Lane is of course building on a complex shared mythos, but the later is a work that only a little interacts with the existing mythos, It has Superman/Clark Kent and Perry White as characters, but their roles are very different. In the case of Superman/Clark Kent you know from the beginning you are seeing him (well some pursits would argue Superboy, he is not yet Superman I guess), but those names are not used. I do not remember if Clark Kent is ever used in the book but you know one of the characters is him, at least if you have any knowledge of any of the multitude of media that he has appeared in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Prolific author. Appears to be enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Setting aside the fact that this is listed under Fictional elements (which should not be used for real world authors or works), the subject fails NBIO/NAUTHOR/GNG. He has an impressive list of titles, but they are very niche works and he himself did not attract any independent coverage, not to mention awards. He makes a living as an author but not all authors are notable. There is not even a single independent biography of him outside Misplaced Pages, our entry is cobbled from various primary sources like book credits, plus an occasional blog. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Concur with Piotrus, fails NBIO/NAUTHOR/GNG due not attracting independent, reliable significant coverage. Source 1 is a blurb and not independent (publisher of author), sources 2-4 are publications from the author, source 5 is a passing mention (p.228), sources 6-14 are blogs, unreliable SPS, and not about the author, source 15 is a publication from the author, source 16 is not archived anywhere, and source 17 is from the author too. Pilaz (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I found numerous reviews of Dave Morris's books. I found one source that provided significant coverage about him:
1. Wilson, Graham A. (2020-05-01). "The use of using digital tools in developing branching narrative". Book 2.0. 10 (1): 124, 126–128. doi:10.1386/btwo_00023_1. ISSN 2042-8022. EBSCOhost 143508031. Retrieved 2022-02-06.
  The article notes on page 124:
  However, to understand the tools used by current gamebook authors and to what extent, or if indeed they used them at all, various authors were approached via gamebook groups on Facebook and asked about their writing and publishing experiences. The participating authors were Martin Noutch, Dave Morris, TroyAnthony Schermer and Dane Barrett. Dave published numerous works in the 1980s and 1990s, while the other authors have started publishing recently and are all currently engaged in writing gamebooks.
  The book notes on pages 126–127:
  Dave Morris is an established UK gamebook author, with an impressive catalogue of books to his name, authoring and co-authoring many series, including Golden Dragon (), Dragon Warriors (), Blood Sword () (Figure 5), Knightmare (), Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (), Heroquest (), Virtual Reality () and Fabled Lands (). He has a cult following amongst gamebook fans, having been part of the Games Workshop team from which most early gamebook authors emerged.
  Dave's work ranges from simple linear branching narratives for children, as in the Knightmare and Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles series' (both accompanying TV shows) to more complex open-world gamebooks such as Fabled Lands, co-authored with Jamie Thomson (). Despite being an admittedly 'old school' author, Dave had dabbled with a variety of digital tools:
Cunard (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep due to involvement in Dragon Warriors.Gusfriend (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep per Cunard's sourcing. I admire his persistence in finding actual sourcing on a relatively niche author having a very common name. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Is one source enough to satisfy WP:NBIO these days? Pilaz (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  - Given the NAUTHOR pass, that isn't really the question, is it? Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    - It actually is, since nobody here has argued that this author passes any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR (outside of WP:VAGUEWAVE). Pilaz (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
      - The Guardian and Kirkus offer unquestionably RS reviews of Morris's created work, satisfying NAUTHOR 3, and the originality of that app adaptation also seems to satisfy NAUTHOR 2. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
        Oh please. An app is a "significant new concept, theory, or technique"? Significant or well-known work with two reviews? One source for the subject of the article to pass WP:BASIC? Even if you were arguing for a WP:AUTHOR pass ~~(I think you're mistakingly calling it NAUTHOR, which just redirects to BIO)~~, WP:BIOSPECIAL demands a merge. A keep vote is pretty much against all logic here. Pilaz (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
        The GNG logic - reflected for example in WP:NBOOK - is that two RS reviews make a work notable. The logic of WP:AUTHOR is that the creators of notable works are themselves presumed to be notable - the threshold for a significant or well-known work for CREATIVE isn't any higher than that for NBOOK or the GNG. Two reviews meets it. And of you can't read the reviews for content and see the innovation they attribute to the app adaptation of Frankenstein, frankly, that's your own (CIR?) issue. The logic of WP:N is apparently something you grasp only vaguely, or you wouldn't say things like against all logic when the logic has already been (somewhat painfully) clarified for you. Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
        One ≠ multiple. The definition for multiple is kept purposefully vague, and WP:3REFS is what I consider the bare minimum number of in-depth reviews. WP:BASIC still isn't met regardless (we're still at one short bio within an article, where Morris is an interviewee). If creating an app adaption of Frankenstein represents a "significant new concept, theory, or technique" (which of the three?), surely you'll be able to help me understand how it distinguishes itself from the scores of other recreations featured in Frankenstein in popular culture, and why the Guardian finds that Morris hasn't fully exploited the device's capabilities in order to reanimate the wild technological imaginings of the story as Shelley herself might have done. Questioning my arguments on WP:CIR grounds doesn't do your argument justice, so please remain WP:CIVIL: if you're going to make an unsubstantiated WP:VAGUEWAVE argument and are later asked to back it up with sources, it's not a personal attack against you. Pilaz (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The whole reason though that I brought up NBOOK is its specification (at a fairly high WP:CONLEVEL, certainly higher than your 3REFS reference) that two RS reviews establishes Notability. Not three, not five. Granted, you can quibble about whether the app adaptation is sufficiently different from a physical book for NBOOK to apply, but that would be to miss my point. My point is (1) there is no reason why a creative work would generally need more than two reviews to be Notable, and (2) if you are arguing that the app version of Frankenstein is sufficiently different from a book that NBOOK doesn't apply, that also strongly suggests that the new...technique being pioneered here has a stronger claim to significant originality than you are willing to recognize.

And if you wanted to know why I made an original assertion re: NAUTHOR rather than starting by offering reviews, you have just showed precisely why: when presented with a consistent and sourced argument that GNG is met (citing NBOOK as a clarifying example), you ignore site-wide consensus and double down on your personal preferences (such as 3REFS or your unusual reading of CREATIVE point 2). Also, as specified in NBIO, NBASIC does not need to be metal for a subject to be presumed notable (which was, in fact, the point I made and that you ignored at the top of this thread). Your idiosyncratic reading of BIOSPECIAL as a required practice simply doesn't follow either the contextual language of the guideline or WP practice, and arguing as though your own "unique" interpretation is the only one possible is, itself, UNCIVIL. And just so that we are clear, this was not a VAGUEWAVE - it was an explicit claim, which I subsequently backed up. So, nobody here has argued that this author passes any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR was simply a false statement on your part, though I assume it was a lapse and not deliberate. Your interjection, Oh please was simply rude, and A keep vote is pretty much against all logic here is UNCIVIL and even gaslight-ey when the logic has in fact be spelled out, as I had already done. So yes, you were engaged in clearly UNCIVIL behaviour, even if the apparent gaslighting was not intentional. My question about CIR may have been out of line, but the tendentiousness of your argumentation here is arguably more of a problem than simple CIR would be. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial: First, let me note that you've sidestepped the Guardian criticizing the app's deficiencies to argue that the app is a "new significant technique". Second, I think I'm starting to understand your argument better (please correct me if this is written inexactly): you believe that because a book passes NBOOK (SNG), then the author automatically passes AUTHOR (another SNG), and then that makes the author pass the GNG. Is that correct? Because not only do SNGs not work like that, SNGs are separate from the GNG. Why else would we have WP:BIOSPECIAL, for those rare cases where an author might fail WP:BASIC but pass any of the criteria of the SNG? WP:SNG also clearly indicates that the SNGs and GNGs are separate: articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article. When I wrote nobody here has argued that this author passes any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR (outside of WP:VAGUEWAVE) (you omitted that part of the sentence), I really meant that and I stand by it. Nobody had, previous to my comment, cited the SNG AND substantiated their claim with evidence. That is the definition of WP:VAGUEWAVE: just pointing to a policy without substantiating it with evidence (after you substantiated it, it was no longer a WP:VAGUEWAVE, obviously. I'm not even sure whether this needs spelling out). The oh please is quite evidently exasperation: when I wrote An app adaptation is a significant new concept, theory, or technique?, the exasperation was due to the fact that you didn't specify which of the three it was (all three? some? one only?). And it took you only two replies to get your answer: "a technique". Was I supposed to just go my merry way, and not ask which of the three it was? I still argue that an app adaptation is not a novel technique (I'm pretty sure that word was included in the SNG for those who, for example, pioneered the technique to separate barium from radium). Adding more vagueness to an already vague guideline doesn't help the discussion go forward, so please take the time to dig to the deepest level of clarity and reduce the vagueness from your arguments, as that will make your argument not only easier to understand, but also easier to support. Finally, regarding the final sentence A keep vote is pretty much against all logic here, it was the logical continuation of Even if you were arguing for a WP:AUTHOR pass WP:BIOSPECIAL demands a merge. But interpreting BIOSPECIAL is "UNCIVIL" apparently, so that means the whole final sentence is gaslighting. Unless it isn't, because BIOSPECIAL says that if you don't meet BASIC but meet AUTHOR, a merge should be performed. Just because you have a different interpretation of BIOSPECIAL doesn't mean your interpretation is UNCIVIL either. Please do not stop assuming good faith. I apologize for the "oh please", which could have been written differently to express my incomprehension with your argument, and stand by everything else that I have written. If you still think I'm being UNCIVIL, start a discussion at AN/I. If any other editors have read this far, I'd be interested to hear third opinions. Pilaz (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone will appreciate that I am not going to respond to that whole WALLOFTEXT. But you seem to misunderstand what it means for the SNGs to be separate from the GNG. As one of the authors of the current text at WP:SNG, I assure you that SNGs and GNG are generally separate paths to Notability (and for biographies, NBASIC operates as a specification of the GNG while criteria like CREATIVE operate as SNGs). The text you keep harping on at BIOSPECIAL was, as far as I know, never intended by anyone as a rule for all cases where the BIO SNGs are met but BASIC is not; you and I have discussed this before at some length, and what is UNCIVIL is for you to pretend that only your interpretation of BIOSPECIAL exists, as though you have never heard a contrary view.

Also, I continue to he annoyed at your misstatements of my basic claims here. It is not that because a book passes NBOOK (SNG), then the author automatically passes AUTHOR (another SNG), and then that makes the author pass the GNG. The only part of that which is correct is that producing a Notable work makes its creator Notable per CREATIVE. But NBOOK is not simply an SNG - it preempts the GNG in specifying what counts as reliable sourcing for book Notability (two reviews). And the end of your paraphrase is sadly mistaken - the NAUTHOR SNG is a direct claim to WP:N Notability and does not "predict" GNG (or NBASIC) sourcing, which is a separate and parallel presumption of Notability. The text of WP:SNG and of WP:NBIO is as clear on this point as it can be, I think, given the heterogenous nature of SNGs and topic areas. Newimpartial (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I opened the ANI archive and, wow. I understand better why you don't want to drag me to the drama board, having barely scratched the surface of your presence in it. I wish I hadn't given you such an extended reply after you cherry-picked my text and went on a tirade about my uncivility here instead of my talk page or ANI (apparently a textual interpretation of a guideline is UNCIVIL). I wish I had known sooner that all of those accusations were made in bad faith and were simply ungrounded. Goodbye. Pilaz (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Accusing me of accusations ... made in bad faith is itself a CIVIL violation. Please don't do that. And attacking me doesn't lend strength to your idiosyncratic interpretations of policy, nor is it relevant here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep per arguments above particularly about meeting WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR and sourcing found by Cunard, and also per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep I have added several sources that indicate continued interest in several of his works, especially his Fabled Lands series. Guinness323 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. No WP:GNG meeting coverage, per the following source assessment table.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20081221192656/http://www.magnumopuspress.com/?page_id=15	His publisher			✘ No
"Open Box". White Dwarf. No. 74. Games Workshop. p. 8.			Assume not; the only statement sourced to this is "The following year, Morris and Oliver Johnson created the Dragon Warriors role-playing game"	? Unknown
Designers & Dragons. Mongoose Publishing			In the first volume, coverage is limited to stating that he had written a series called Dragon Warriors, and another called Fabled Lands. In the third volume, coverage is limited to stating that James Wallace had obtained a licence to to Morris' Dragon Warriors. The second and fourth volumes contain no coverage.	✘ No
Arcane Presents the Top 50 Roleplaying Games 1996". Arcane			Assume not; only coverage sourced to it is about a game made by Morris, not Morris.	? Unknown
https://entropymag.org/session-report-fabled-lands-and-beginnings/		Seems to accept reader submissions	Significant coverage of "Fabled Lands"; passing mentions of Morris in the context of his role in creating it.	✘ No
https://spielkritik.com/2019/01/29/playing-by-the-books-part-i-gamebooks-und-die-open-world-der-fabled-lands/			Single, passing mention	✘ No
https://bit-tech.net/reviews/gaming/pc/fabled-lands-the-mmo-that-never-was/1/	~ Significant quotations from Morris		Content is entirely about Fabled Lands, not Morris	✘ No
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1299620/view/2368278345865697462	Post by a company licenced by Morris to create a video game of the Fabled Lands			✘ No
https://www.megara-entertainment.com/		Appears to be a self-published video game news	No mention of Morris	✘ No
http://mirabilis-yearofwonders.blogspot.com/	Published by Morris	A blog		✘ No
http://mirabilis-yearofwonders.com/	Published by Morris		Passing mention of Morris	✘ No
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id405743224?mt=8	"Morris founded electronic publisher Mirus Entertainment and published Mirabilis for the iPad"			✘ No
https://www.tekumel.com/eoasw.html	Written/Edited by Morris		Passing mentions of Morris as editor	✘ No
https://www.librarything.com/author/morrisdave		WP:USERGEN	List of publications	✘ No
Game Architecture and Design, by Andrew Rollings and Dave Morris	Written by Morris			✘ No
http://www.afi.com/education/dcl/roster/SearchResult.aspx?text=law+%26+order			Dead link, no archive	? Unknown
"The use of using digital tools in developing branching narrative"	~ Three paragraphs of direct quotes discussing the digital tools used by Morris		Many passing mentions. The sections that go beyond this are the three direct quotes, and the second of the two paragraphs quoted by Cunard, but this paragraph, simply listing the works he has created, is not WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dave-morris/frankenstien-interactive-novel-divided-self_b_1456960.html	Written by Morris	Blog		✘ No
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}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That's fascinating, but creating a table doesen't make the claims an editor makes based on their own POV any more authoritative becaus they are presented in tabular form. There is no basis in policy to set the bar of WP:SIGCOV where this editor thinks it ought to be. Newimpartial (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to dispute my assessments; which ones do you disagree with? BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The ones departing most clearly from policy are your evaluations of the Designers & Dragons and "Use of using digital tools " sources. You also don't appear to have done a satisfactory BEFORE, and don't give any apparent recognition to NAUTHOR considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The coverage in "The use of using digital tools in developing branching narrative" does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG; the only independent coverage of any length is Dave Morris is an established UK gamebook author, with an impressive catalogue of books to his name, authoring and co-authoring many series, including Golden Dragon (Morris and Johnson 1984–85), Dragon Warriors (Morris and Johnson 1985–86), Blood Sword (Morris et al. 1987–88) (Figure 5), Knightmare (Morris 1988–94), Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (Morris 1990–91), Heroquest (Morris 1993), Virtual Reality (Morris and Smith 1995–96) and Fabled Lands (Morris and Thomson 1995–96). He has a cult following amongst gamebook fans, having been part of the Games Workshop team from which most early gamebook authors emerged. and Dave’s work ranges from simple linear branching narratives for children, as in the Knightmare and Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles series’ (both accompanying TV shows) to more complex open-world gamebooks such as Fabled Lands, co-authored with Jamie Thomson (Morris and Thomson 1995–96). Despite being an admittedly ‘old school’ author, Dave had dabbled with a variety of digital tools:. Most of this is made up of a bibliography, and of the rest all we can say is that His work ranges from linear branching narratives to complex open-world gamebooks, and has a cult following amongst gamebook fans due to his previous work with Games Workshop. He has used a number of digital tools; if that and simple facts are all we can get out of this work, then it isn't WP:SIGCOV.

I've also reviewed "Designers and Dragons" using the links provided by Pilaz, and it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:GNG - see updated table.

And no, I didn't do a WP:BEFORE. I didn't nominate the article for deletion, and at this point I assume all sources that could meet WP:GNG have been provided. As for WP:NAUTHOR, it is unclear whether Fabled Lands is a significant or well-known work, and even if it is WP:NBIO states that People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included - and if we cannot find coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, then it should not be included. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

NBIO, like the GNG itself, is a presumption of Notability (and inclusion) - the GNG is not a universal formula for Notability (or inclusion) nor is it a requirement for all articles. Perhaps you should read WP:SNG.

Also, in your table, you appear to be requiring the sources to discuss the article's subject apart from their Notable work to contribute to the Notability of the subject in terms of SIGCOV. There is no basis for this in WP policy or guidelines, however. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It is, but it does not guarantee that a subject should be included. And sources that discuss the author in the context of their work count towards notability, such as an article that discusses how Tolkien's background contributed to the lore of the Lord of the Rings, but sources that only discuss the work do not; these sources are the latter, not the former. BilledMammal (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It strikes me as bizarre (and lacking grounding in WP policy) to interpret a paragraph documenting the subject's contributions to a field as only discussing the work and not the author. Any independent RS that can be used to make relevant statements about the article's subject contribute to its Notability with respect to SIGCOV. There is simply no basis in WP policy or guidelines to require sources akin to an article that discusses how Tolkien's background contributed to the lore of the Lord of the Rings so that Notability can be established (no slight against such sources, of course, which are valuable). Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That is because we cannot write an article about the creator with such sources; if we tried to write an article about Tolkien using sources that only discuss the Lord of the Rings, then we would have an article about the Lord of the Rings, and not an article about Tolkien. BilledMammal (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's a link to Designers and Dragons that you could incorporate into your analysis. Mentions of Morris can be found in the second edition, first and third volume. Pilaz (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, done. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal: sorry, I just realized I should have also linked the second and fourth volume for transparency's sake, although he does not appear in either. Pilaz (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, updated. BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep. An author's notability is in his books, his have been widely reviewed, including in The Guardian. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NOTINHERITED; not every creator of a notable work is notable, and not every work of a notable creator is notable. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  - That isn't the way NOTINHERITED works, though: it dictates that the works of a Notable author are not necessarily notable, but it is not intended to offer an opinion on the other direction of travel. NAUTHOR (and other SNGs) are clear on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    - Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable. BilledMammal (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
      - It isn't correct to interpret NOTINHERITED the same way in relation to NCORP as to NAUTHOR, however, regardless of any loose writing to the contrary. In fact, you seem to be citing an essay against a guideline, which isn't a good look IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
        Then I will cite WP:N: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The topic in this case is Dave Morris, not Fabled Lands. BilledMammal (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
        So that excludes sources that are only about Fabled Lands, but includes sources that discuss Dave Morris as creator of Fabled Lands. We can most certainly write a policy-compliant article based on sources of the latter kind. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
        If their discussion of Morris amounts to significant coverage, yes. But that coverage was not found in any of the sources in the article. BilledMammal (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  - I hate to get in the way of a good two way argument about my opinion, but somehow feel as if I should respond at least once. NOTINHERITED is generally for authors of a single work (and to be honest, not always then; we have several articles about authors of a single work). In this case, though I appreciate the platypus's (echidna's? are there any others?) point, Morris has written so much that I humbly think the cumulative coverage is sufficient. Feel free carry on. --GRuban (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep. I find the arguments and policy points raised by those arguing for keep far more persuasive than those arguing for delete. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep sources are well past the GNG. Designers and Dragaons and the Digital Tools book are about enough, but with the rest we're in good shape. Hobit (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- "Designers and Dragons" are about enough? Which mentions Morris three times, to tell us that he wrote a series called Dragon Warriors, that he wrote a series called Fabled Lands, and that James Wallace had obtained a licence to to Morris' Dragon Warriors? I realize that there are different definitions of significant coverage, but "Designers and Dragons" cannot reasonably be considered sufficient coverage of Morris. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  - You don't see those RS statements as relevant to Morris, or usable for this article? That dismissal doesn't sound "reasonable" to me - this source looks like a clear SIGCOV pass. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    - They are relevant and usable, but that isn't the definition of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
      - A lot of nonsense gets written about WP:SIGCOV, mostly at AfD. The actual guideline definition of Significant Coverage is simply that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. That's it, and the NOR requirement is part amd parcel to the source being "relevant and usable" for the article. The source need not make a claim the article's subject is significant, nor need it be of any particular length or (analytical) depth - as some editors constantly insist at AfD for no policy-compliant reason. Newimpartial (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
        Telling us that he authored two works, and that a James Wallace obtained a licence to one of those works, is "in detail"? BilledMammal (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
        There is more information in each source than you have just laid out (starting with what the works in question in fact are). In fact, the difference between your paraphrase and the actual RS just might represent the difference between something that is not "in detail" (your paraphrase, which says nothing usable) and something that is "in detail" (the actual sources, which say something usable). Again, "in detail" here essentially means "in sufficient detail to use in the article without OR". Newimpartial (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
keep. Conventionally, in practice, an author typically survives per WP:NAUTHOR if they have at least two items that pass WP:NBOOK. The reviews accomplish that here. In addition to the reviews, Morris’s Frankenstein app probably passes the NBOOK criteria for being the subject of instruction at multiple schools, as I have personally taught it in an undergrad English class. NAUTHOR, like WP:NPROF, is a little unusual as an SNG because it does explicitly allow persons to derive notability from coverage of their works even if the sourcing only discusses those works rather than discussing the person directly. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep, as they have written multiple noteworthy books.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. Liz 06:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Salah Choudhury

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Controversially listed. No such Primary sources in notability. Morever, there is probable UPE/COI is seen in in the wiki entry. Most of the resource just have a mention and the citatited coverage are from same source. - NeverTry4Me - TT page 08:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NeverTry4Me - TT page 08:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NeverTry4Me - TT page 08:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. NeverTry4Me - TT page 08:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment per the talk page, the Weekly Blitz article was redirected here, I'm wondering if this makes the article notable as an editor of a newspaper. although I'm not familiar with that particular newspaper. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Am a {{tpw}} on the nom. and have been concerned about some of their actions - which raise from good to what in my view is highly problematic. So myself and the nom. are developing history. The nomination is WP:VAGUEWAVE inviting those coming to the discussion to try and sift through sources and contributions to determine what's what and where the COI/UPE might be. The nom has over shame tagged the article here, and even worse has de-contexted the "Assaults" section here. Without digging further I'm at this moment concerned there may be an attempt to wipe this Bangladeshi publication/journalist from WikiPedia. Thanmkyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Choudhury is a controversial journalist and newspaper editor in Bangladesh because of his pro-Israel stance. That is why the world has taken wide notice of him over many years. I see no evidence of conflict of interest editing. If the nominator cares to back up those allegations with details, any such problems can be fixed through editing. There is ample significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, such as . Easily passes WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep There is evidence of significant coverage. There does not seem to be any valid reason to delete the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep: Per others and my initial thoughts. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. Liz 06:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Ebix

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional article that's mostly about Robin Raina and not about the company. Sources cited are highly suspect, e.g. "Robin Raina Net Worth (2022)". "Raina is known to lead the firm efficiently during the 2008 global financial crash". And so forth. WP:LISTED does not compel us to keep this just because it's publicly traded, and the sources cited are all routine business coverage or not WP:RS at all, leaving little to be said about Ebix. FalconK (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep; not promotional at all: This Hindustan Times article clearly says that it's "a leader in insurance and payment processing software and exchanges". And according to this Business Today article, it is the "only company in Atlanta that has a road named after it: 1 Ebix Way". Moreover, this company has enough media coverage that your bid to challenge its notability makes your stance completely baseless. If you think this article is written like an advertisement you can certainly use different a tag instead of AfD. Now let others decide. Derivator2017 (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I was looking into this, and note that the Hindustan Times piece linked above is a by-line-less reprint of an Asian News International piece, with the latter source's reliability being highly contested last time it was discussed; I would not consider it to be an indicator of notability in this context. _signed,Rosguill 16:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep but improve. This is a company on the NASDAQ with a current market cap of over $900 million USD. Suggest tagging with appropriate improvement tags. Ebix Smartclass has also been marked for deletion so perhaps merging it to this page would be a start.Gusfriend (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep - As above - needs work, but no need for WP:TNT. FalconK if you could tag the areas you have a problem with, I'm happy to work on them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed some of the irrelevant stuff but my main problem with it is that there's so little to say about the company other than that it's a business, has a bunch of money, and exists. I'm having some trouble with WP:CORPDEPTH on this one. FalconK (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete: as per nom. Fails WP:ORGIND. Rest everything is WP:PROMO. Possible WP:COI. - Hatchens (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete: sources fail WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude talk 20:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep because the article is not promotional at all. It doesn't need to be deleted. It just needs some improvement. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

But where is the evidence for notability? FalconK (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep None of the refs in the article or those found above are independent (especially the long ones - Business Today is interview masked as a report, Smart Business is clearly promotional) , except the Bloomberg article on accounting probe. But that probe had led to some solid coverage of the company (bloomberg, wsj) and there were a number of detailed short seller reports at that time (1, 2). As it is WP:LISTED, I expect more analyst reports can be found (I'm unable to find more myself, due to unfamiliarity with US stocks). hemantha (brief) 05:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note - Additional reliable sources: Reuters (regarding merger litigation), TechCrunch (regarding merger - includes in-depth coverage of Ebix), The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (regarding stock price fall, and questionable stock sales), Mint (regarding another merger), Mint (regarding an IPO), Mint (regarding an acquisition), Mint (regarding two acquisitions), Fortune India (regarding another acquisition), Mint (in-depth look at the company’s acquisition strategy), USA Today (AP) (regarding Goldman Sachs calling off its purchase of Ebix). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To examine the newly added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep per sources provided by Hemantha and Coffee. 12:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep There are analyst reports available for this company and commentary which I believe meet NCORP. HighKing 15:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was as follows:

Kyle Fortson — Delete
Linda Puchala — No consensus
Ernest W. DuBester — No consensus

– North America 08:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Kyle Fortson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with the recent delete verdict for Deirdre Hamilton, being on the National Mediation Board doesn't get much more than announcements of nomination or Senate approval in the media, far short of satisfying WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ (see below for comments on each individually) - I think these should be discussed separately as they each have different degrees of coverage. What is the process to separate out the discussion? DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune article on Puchala is WP:SIGCOV DuBester is cited by the New York Times multiple times during the 1995 negotiations with Metro-North. I haven't dug into Fortson yet, but I don't think this can be conducted as one discussion for all members of the board. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep:Puchala Her work is covered in a book on women and unions, and in articles about her past position as president of the flight attendant union

Keep:DuBester His work on averting strikes has been covered in the New York Times.

Delete:Fortson I have been less successful at finding coverage of her, though her role on the Mexico Labor Expert Board was covered by Politico.

DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Johnsson, Julie (30 March 2009). "A new player awaits seat". Chicago Tribune. p. 1.19.
Nielsen, Georgia Panter (1982). From sky girl to flight attendant : women and the making of a union. Ithica, NY : ILR Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-87546-093-2.
Karim, Persis (16 November 1985). "People's World 1985-11-16: Vol 48 Iss 46". Longview Publishing Company, Inc. Retrieved 9 February 2022.
"AFL-CIO News 1984-03-03: Vol 29 Iss 9". American Federation of Labor and. 3 March 1984.
Serrin, William (27 February 1984). "REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: LABOR AND THE ISSUE OF LEBANON". The New York Times.
Greenhouse, Steven (1 September 1985). "RESHAPING LABOR TO WOO THE YOUNG". The New York Times.
Lueck, Thomas J. (14 July 1995). "Invitation To Strike:". The New York Times.
Zuckerman, Laurence (1 July 2001). "FIVE QUESTIONS for ERNEST W. DuBESTER; In Defense Of the Oldest Labor Law". The New York Times.
Greenhouse, Steven (26 March 2000). "ATTENDANTS UNION IN TENTATIVE DEAL WITH US AIRWAYS". The New York Times.
Palmer, Doug (January 4, 2021). "USTR set to impose tariffs on French goods in tax dispute". POLITICO.

Delete all There is clearly not GNG level coverage for any of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete Fortson; keep Puchala; keep DuBester. These are tricky because there are so many trivial mentions to wade through, and I wish that they hadn't been nominated for deletion en bloc. But on balance, I've reached pretty much the same conclusions as DaffodilOcean, although for slightly different reasons. I agree that Fortson isn't notable: there are quite a few trivial mentions, but nothing substantial. I also agree that Puchala is notable: sources like , , and point to a WP:BASIC pass, particularly when combined with other less in-depth sources. DuBester is a close call, and I've gone back and forth on him several times. The New York Times articles mentioned above don't cut it for me: one is a non-independent interview and two are non-significant trivial mentions. But importantly, DuBester has also served on the Federal Labor Relations Authority, a higher-profile agency than the NMB. That means we have sources like and , plus coverage of various decisions of his (e.g. several noteworthy dissents during the Trump administration). I think he probably passes the notability threshold as well. As always, I'm glad to reconsider any of these positions if there's something I've missed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: - I don't have access to newspapers. com, and the clips for Puchala are strong additions to the page. Is there anything about Fortson at newspapers.com? DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

DaffodilOcean, not that I could find. Searching for "Kyle Fortson" gives me 100 results, but the grand majority are about some unrelated high school basketball player in Indiana. As best I can tell, none of them refer to this Kyle Fortson. (By the way, you can get free Newspapers.com access through the Misplaced Pages Library: it's really useful, especially for 20th-21st-century American topics.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ - OK, further support of the delete vote for Fortson, thanks for the update (and the tip about newspapers.com). DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Spartaz 08:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Andreas Fulda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially notable, but fails WP:NPROF. Possibly meets WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep 03:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete as the subject does not meet Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline. I support deletion per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources about him. I would be open to supporting retention if editors determine that Andreas Fulda, an Associate Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, at the University of Nottingham (profile from the university), passes WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF.
I found two book reviews for books the subject authored or edited:
1. Chiu, Adrian; Chung, Ming-Lun (2021-07-09). "Andreas Fulda, The Struggle for Democracy in Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong: Sharp Power and Its Discontents". International Journal of Taiwan Studies. 4 (2). Brill Publishers: 390–392. doi:10.1163/24688800-20211196. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  This is a book review of a book Andreas Fulda wrote. The two-page PDF preview shows that there is in-depth analysis of Fulda's book. However, the preview does not show biographical coverage about Fulda himself.
2. Shang, Xiaoyuan (January 2017). "Civil Society Contributions to Policy Innovation in the PR China, edited by Andreas Fulda. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. xv+311 pp. £75.00 (cloth)". The China Journal. 77. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.1086/689232. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  This is a book review of a book Andreas Fulda edited. Aside from the article title, his name is not mentioned in the book review.
I found that Andreas Fulder is quoted a lot in the media. However, there is not significant coverage about him in these sources.
Cunard (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep: I think Cunard may have misunderstood the usefulness of reviews and their relationship to WP:NAUTHOR? Reviews of an author's work do not need to contain biographical coverage - indeed, it would be very strange for an academic review to do so. However, it is also strange that an academic this frequently quoted in news media, etc, only has a handful of reviews for any of his three books. I'm the one who added the reviews to the article; when I first saw it, I was expecting to find a clear NAUTHOR pass since there were three books there, but they're pretty under-reviewed, and one of them isn't a monograph. I held off on voting either way at first because this looks very borderline. But on reflection, I don't think there is any clear purpose in deletion here: this is a borderline case that will almost certainly become more notable as time goes on, and the article is short but not in bad shape. I don't see a hugely compelling argument in either direction, really. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis, Asilvering (talk · contribs). Striking my comment and supporting keep per WP:NAUTHOR, a guideline that I am not well-versed in. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't think this is an obvious WP:NAUTHOR pass either; but unlike many of the other guidelines, that one allows for significant coverage (or citation) of an author's work to count for notability, rather than significant coverage of the author themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Weak keep under WP:NAUTHOR, not WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - clearly does not meet WP:NPROF, and I don't think he passes NAUTHOR either. One of the reviews is for an article, not a book, which appears on the website of the same publisher which published the journal the article was in. So I would question the independence of that review. Onel5969 12:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Which review are you talking about? I could try to resolve this but the only reviews I see are for books so I'm not sure what you mean. -- asilvering (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The 1st one. Yip, possibly a paid review or at the very a least conflict of interest. I think it probably makes it suspect at the very least and unreliable. scope_creep 09:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'm still lost. I only see reviews footnoted for the three books. It would be extremely unusual for someone to write a review for an article in any case. But I'm also laugh-sobbing at the idea that academics get paid to write reviews for books (books that you also, typically, do not get paid for writing). -- asilvering (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

KEEP passes WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR as Google Scholar describes itself here(Cited by 210). --NeverTry4Me - TT page 08:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It is too low a bar by any measure to satisfy WP:NPROF and GScholar isn't used for WP:SIGCOV or WP:NAUTHOR. A simple measure on GScholar to determine if he was notable, if he had more than five papers with more than 100 citations for NPROF. The only measure that counts here is the book reviews. NAUTHOR requires independent book reviews. There is one that is idependent, one is bit dodgy, and likely unreliable. If another review turned up, then it would be good start for notability, but it has not been found yet. I don't think it will. It seems to be be below borderline. scope_creep 11:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep Can you please link the exact review you're talking about for me, since I'm still at sea here? I think this might be a misunderstanding of how academic publishing works - editorial boards of journals are not terribly beholden to the publisher, and indeed academics don't often think of who the publisher even is for journals, at least in the humanities. (You do care when it comes to a book... usually. But as someone working for an academic press, I've been told (reasonably politely) to go to hell by an ed board before. It's the board and the peer reviewers who decide what gets published, much much more than the publisher.) But you may indeed be correct and be seeing something I've overlooked, in which case we should probably pull the review link entirely. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The 1st above. Both the book and review have been published, by the same publisher. It is not independent. scope_creep 18:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean in @Cunard's post? That's not the case. The review is in a Brill journal, and the book is published by Routledge. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

They are appearing on the same, not published by. So far they're is only one reliable reference. scope_creep 09:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Weak delete. I think it's still a bit WP:TOOSOON. The best case appears to be through WP:NAUTHOR, as is unsurprising in what I believe to be a "book field". I see two solid reviews of authored works, one of an edited volume, and one review/interview on the New Books Network. I think that New Books Network is probably somewhat reliable (with usual caveats about interviews), but I don't think it's the kind of review discussed by WP:NAUTHOR; edited volumes are different from authored works. I'd like to see at least one more solid review of an authored work. Mentions in context of his work seem a little short of WP:GNG. I'm not seeing WP:NPROF, as others have discussed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep The more academic profiles in Misplaced Pages, the more informitative Misplaced Pages is. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bosley John Bosley: They are articles not profiles. Don't use the word profiles, if you wish to remain on Misplaced Pages. Saying such a thing as that, makes me think that you undeclared paid editor. scope_creep 13:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

...er...WP:AGF...check my edits dude - who would be paying me?...and for what? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Weak keep. The book reviews are enough for at least a weak case for WP:AUTHOR, and the Radio Free Asia "Concerns Grow" source has a six-paragraph section about him, which I think rises to the level of nontrivial coverage. More coverage is hard to find but in part that's because it's obscured by the many publications that are by him rather than about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion of whether there's a confict between the journal and the book's publishers, which does not appear to have been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment. I find the focus of the deletionists here on independence of publishers and the reiteration of this focus in the relisting comment by User:Star Mississippi to be completely baffling. The article does not list any reviews that match the imagined descriptions of the deletionists here: there are no reviews of articles, and there are no reviews that have the same publisher as the thing they review. The article in its current state (unchanged since Feb.9) lists four book reviews: published by New Books Network about a 264-Routledge book, published by Brill about the same Routledge book, published by U. Chicago Press about a 311-page Palgrave Macmillan book (edited), and published by the Arnold Bergstraesser Institute about a 277-page Springer book. There is not even an apparent conflict of interest. In all four cases the publisher of the review and the publisher of the book are unrelated, and the page counts make it clear that the reviewed items are books and not mere articles. When asked for clarification on which review was meant, Onel only produced more unclearness: "Yip" (a name not used in any of these reviews), and "the first one" (of what ordering?) We cannot base a deletion discussion on made-up facts that do not match anything in the article or the rest of the world. Opinions based on these untruths should be discounted, just as we normally discount deletion opinions that are disconnected from our notability guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Speaking purely to my statement, it didn't look like @Scope creep's query was answered. And note, NeverTry is a blocked editor so that conversation definitely needs input from established editors and Bosley's keep is not at all policy related. If I had closed, it might have been n/c, but I didn't feel confident in that standing, hence the relist. No harm in more time. Star Mississippi 14:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I'm wasn't sure if he is notable or not, hence the Afd rationale above. I think with four genuine reviews, the subject is likely notable. I tend to trust David Eppstein as he knows what he is talking about, in this instance. I originally looked at them and wasn't sure. Regarding the comment above, I don't think there was any attempt to make up facts, as that is the whole point of Afd, is to ferret them out and make them visible so they can discussed. Lastly Yip means Yes in British English. I thought originally the first review that was coied, but even with three others it would be more than enough. scope_creep 14:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. My concern was whether your question was answered. I haven't reviewed the sources as this is a complicated (in a good sense) discussion and I haven't had time to dive. If folks happy with this closing, happy to revert my relist. Star Mississippi 15:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi for what it's worth, I think your no-consensus instinct is sensible. There are more keep votes than delete votes, and once you cut through the confusion about the publishers the delete votes are pretty weak, but the keep votes don't have really strong arguments either, and it's been a pretty confusing AfD, as you say. -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Liberty Holdings Limited. Spartaz 17:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC) no consensus. 2001:448A:6000:FD1B:CDB2:749D:A344:C24D (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

STANLIB

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has only 1st party sources; I can find nothing but listings in Google, DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Strong Keep Well known and large South African asset management company. Park3r (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Great, but how do we know that unless there are third-party reliable references? Any links? HighKing 21:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment more than enough sources in GNews at least confirming they exist, not sure how notable they are. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment there are numerous articles in the financial press about Stanlib. Given the declining quality of Google search results means that we need to prefix our searches. The fact that South African journalism is in crisis means that many sources are now paywalled. Here are some mainstream sources (IOL is not paywalled and despite recent issues with its journalism, the group dates back to the 1800s, and was a WP:RS when most of these articles were written. A search for •

“Stanlib iol” gives us numerous results including: from 2021 . From 2009 . From 2018 . From 2004 . From 2015 (Bloomberg) . 2006: . 2004: . 2012:. Here’s coverage from News24: . I’m on a mobile, but there are literally dozens of articles in WP:RS demonstrating its notability. Park3r (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect as per WP:ATD to Liberty Holdings Limited - although that article is probably in worse shape currently, it does appear that sufficient sources exist for that topic to meet notability criteria. HighKing 21:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge or Redirect to Liberty Holdings Limited. No proper citations provided. Chelokabob (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we merge content that is not properly sourced?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment I feel like WP:NOTCLEANUP is being disregarded here. The subject of the article is notable, regardless of the sourcing. I have added numerous citations above from WP:RS demonstrating notability. Once notability is demonstrated, the AFD process should end and other mechanisms used to address sourcing and other issues with the article. Also WP:WORLDWIDE needs to be borne in mind.Park3r (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Liz 06:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Riverside Manufacturing LLC

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite my due diligence, this business fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. Missvain (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom, fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NCORP. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. -Imcdc (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 20:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete As per the reasons mentioned above. Additionally this seems to be getting close to WP:PROMO --Paulstar57 (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Clear sense that this fails GNG and the Music argument hasn’t moved later voters. Spartaz 17:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The Mylene Sheath

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to be a passing mention. I found which also seems to be a passing mention. Sikonmina (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels. Chubbles (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I just added one reliable source to the article. One more would prove notability. Sikonmina (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

These are the steps you should be doing before nominating an article for deletion. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

These are steps people should be doing before they create an article. Sikonmina (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete, aside from the Billboard article, everything else I could find was a passing mention. As a result, it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll note that, consistent with the wording at WP:MUSIC, the label released music from several indisputably notable bands over a period of a number of years - e.g., Caspian, If These Trees Could Talk, Jakob, Junius, and Pelican. There is regular media coverage of these releases, which discusses the label by name. The nominator nominated this for deletion less than one hour after the last AfD closed, because that closure encouraged him to do so; please see discussions here regarding carelessness and WP:CIVIL concerns about that editor. Chubbles (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to WP:AGF; my intention isn't to violate policy. You, however, are casting aspersions and that isn't WP:CIVIL. Sikonmina (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Happy to see the editor has turned a new leaf. Chubbles (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold 3rd relist, as the last AFD also resulted in a no consensus close. Are there enough sources to pass WP:BASIC?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Weak delete. IMHO the entry is WP:USEFUL but not necessarily suited for Misplaced Pages, as I don't see how the company passes WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG? It exits, it released some albums, but that doesn't make it notable, does it? And if this Billboard coverage is "the best" we have, then the lack of notability is very evident (since it's pretty much just a short press release or a rehash of one). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC suggests that "one of the more notable indies" can be judged by the importance of its roster and its length of operation, which is a more concrete guideline than NCORP (and, being closer to the expertise area, is more suitable). There's also some utility in being able to tie these artists together - they share an important attribute, of being on the same label, and without the label article acting basically as a list fulcrum, the artists would have to be linked together each on each page, which is awkward from an information-organization standpoint. Chubbles (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chubbles Which takes me back to, well, what I said. This is useful but NMUSIC is just a supplement to GNG and in theory, GNG has precedence - NMUSIC just says "this kind of entity is likely to meet GNG so please do a throughout BEFORE"... And said BEFORE is not yielding sources showing WP:SIGCOV coverage, is it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

So there are lots of articles (I can find dozens) of the format "x band signs to Mylene Sheath", which is typically taken here to be SIGCOV of the band rather than the label, and I'm not really sure that's the right way to think about them. There aren't many in-depth, longform profiles of the label, but I've always argued that is not a reasonable expectation for this sort of notability question. As I noted, there are some practical utilities that are afforded by label articles when thought of basically as list articles; another way we could handle the info-org problem would be convert it to a category, but I'm sure someone would eventually bring that to CfD if there's no article to support the category. Ultimately, I guess the way I look at it is, this is a label that released some genuinely important music, and that is of encyclopedic interest; if our guidelines are preventing us from giving a robust account...well, that's what WP:IAR is for, no? Chubbles (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your argument: does WP:MUSIC have any guidance on notability? Sikonmina (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Chubbles, "There aren't many in-depth, longform profiles of the label". Wait, so there are some? Links? Also, SIGCOV aside, do we have any assessments? Did anyone say that this label is important or such? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Weak delete As per Piotr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Neither side prevails whether assessing on numbers or on strength/quality of argument. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nicolas Tié

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Player still fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Made no appearances during the 2020 Olympics, has not made his debut for Vitoria and has no significant coverage. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep - he was determined to be notable and meet GNG at the last AFD. Giant Snowman 14:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment This was under the assumption that he would actually play at the Olympics, which he did not. If we are setting the benchmark for notability at "being involved in an international squad", then there are a lot of AfDs that need to be reviewed and articles that need reinstating. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, since then, WP:NOLYMPICS has been changed, so people are no longer assumed notable for just competing at an Olympics (only if they win a medal). Although as he didn't even compete, this shouldn't factor into it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment - this looks like it would contribute to GNG somewhat. Has anyone got anything else? Spiderone 21:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep This was a unanimous keep in the AFD a few months ago. User:Davidlofgren1996 in their comment above misrepresents the debate by claiming that "he would actually play at the Olympics", however a read of the AFD makes it clear that it wasn't his potential Olympic appearance, but that GNG was met. The article is well sourced, and coverage continues in the media such as the good reference Spiderone has above. There's also further (brief) coverage in the last few weeks of his upcoming transfer to FC St. Gallen. Nfitz (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Okay, if the community agrees that this article genuinely passes GNG, then fine. I just personally thought the benchmark was much higher for GNG than this. The source provided by Spiderone was already in the article, so I have seen it already, but it is the only real article specifically about Tié. All the rest are either mentions or transfer speculation/gossip/announcements. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, I stand by my earlier comment that the !keep voters were mostly voting with the impression that he would pass WP:NOLYMPICS, with comments being "seems very close to passing GNG, and at any rate should not be deleted until after the Olympics at the soonest", "and further the Olympics starts July 23rd that is Just 6 days from now" and "and going to the Olympics". I am aware some of these voters said he met GNG, but the reason I've started this debate is because I do not believe that one independent source is enough for sigcov. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep', meets GNG. Also very likely to meet NFOOTY as he is on the roster of a top flight team.--Mvqr (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete the sourcing is not enough to pass GNG. The past discussion was a crystal one that predicted an Olympics appearance which did not materialize. This is why we have the rules against crystal predictions of the future in the first place. We need to build articles on the reality of the present not on predictions of the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep, the sourcing in this article is both numerous and covers several different events, enough to easily make him pass WP:GNG, regardless of his NFOOTY fail. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep sourcing in the article appears to be sufficient for passing WP:GNG, even if he did not compete at the olympics. NemesisAT (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage, per the following source assessment table:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.premierleague.com/news/844127			One line in a list of "U21 players (Contract and Scholars)"	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/nicolas-tie/496583//			Statistical information only	✘ No
https://www.chelseafc.com/en/teams/academy/nicolas-tie	Chelsea is not independent from its academy players		~	✘ No
https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/chelsea-goalkeeper-tie-signs-contract-until-2021/1go6j9w0mh4ik1fbjz12upfwv4			Minimal coverage, with no information beyond basic facts	✘ No
https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2020/8/1/21350583/official-vitoria-de-guimaraes-sign-chelsea-u18-goalkeeper-nicolas-tie		Chelsea fansite		✘ No
https://www.ojogo.pt/futebol/1a-liga/vitoria-guimaraes/noticias/mais-um-jogador-em-vias-de-deixar-o-v-guimaraes-tie-a-treinar-no-st-gallen-14486157.html			Minimal coverage, with no information beyond basic facts	✘ No
https://www.guimaraesdigital.com/index.php/informacao/desporto/70987-nicolas-tie-devera-deixar-vitoria-para-reforcar-st-gallen			Minimal coverage, with no information beyond basic facts	✘ No
https://www.tagblatt.ch/sport/fcstgallen/fcsg-ghana-verliert-erstes-spiel-am-afrika-cup-zigi-koennte-zum-rueckrundenauftakt-dem-fc-stgallen-zur-verfuegung-stehen-ld.2237205			Single brief paragraph of coverage in a larger article that provides no useful information - does not even support the line it is claimed to support	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45757886			Passing mention; "Chelsea academy goalkeeper Nicolas Tie has been forced to withdraw from Ivory Coast's squad for their 2019 Africa Cup of Nations qualifiers against Central African Republic (CAR)", in addition to two sentences of quotes which are not independent.	✘ No
https://www.guimaraesdigital.com/index.php/informacao/desporto/67125-vitorianos-nicolas-tie-e-o-lateral-direito-zie-ouattara-convocados-pela-costa-do-marfim-para-os-jogos-olimpicos			Only information provided is that Tie has been called up for the Ivory Coast Olympic team; does not constitute significant coverage	✘ No
https://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/poitiers/football-le-gardien-de-but-poitevin-nicolas-tie-aux-jeux-olympiques-avec-la-cote-d-ivoire			Three sentences of independent coverage stating that he will travel to Japan on the 17th of July, as one of three Ivory Coast goalkeepers for the Olympics; the rest is a very basic interview	✘ No
https://www.nbcolympics.com/news/tokyo-olympics-mens-soccer-preview-group-d-brazil-germany-cote-divoire-saudi-arabia			Passing mention in a list of Ivory Coast players	✘ No
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12356355/football-at-olympics-tokyo-2020-which-premier-league-stars-are-heading-to-the-games			Passing mention in a list of Ivory Coast players	✘ No
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}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Good enough sourcing and coverage is just enough to meet GNG. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. The article has been refbombed with routine transaction coverage, but still does not have a single piece of SIGCOV. Definitely does not meet GNG. I had actually completed my own source assess table before seeing BilledMammal had already made one; since mine was almost identical to theirs I can say I agree fully with their assessment. JoelleJay (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

That's hardly ref-bombing. Also the sum total of some of the references provided meet WP:SIGCOV which notes that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but does not need to be the main topic of the article. You imply that what many see as significant coverage, you see at WP:ROUTINE, but a reading of ROUTINE makes it clear that sports scores are routine. Sure, there's routine coverage of the transfer of notable players (as in articles, rather than just a line in a table) - but that's no surprise. Also of no surprise, is that there's other coverage not referenced in the article (wouldn't want to REFBOMB it), such as this that post-dates the last (snow keep) AFD. Nfitz (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
That source is already in the assessment table. If the sum total of transaction coverage was accepted as equivalent to SIGCOV, every football player deleted in all the previous AfDs would have been kept. The ONLY coverage of Tié is transactional; there is no assessment of his skills, no detailed analysis of his performance over time. Guimaraes Digital reports on local youth chess tournaments, their spending 5 sentences on Tié transferring to St Gallen is hardly indicative of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The reporting of local chess tournaments is most certainly not a criteria to invalidate a source. See this example from the New York Times]. Nfitz (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
It sure is when the same amount of un-bylined coverage is given to a youth district chess tournament as to a transaction announcement! JoelleJay (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Why must you argue about absolutely everything, on every discussion you are involved in, always needing to get the last word? You act like there are rules, and everything is black and white, rather than shades of grey. Even in the real world, laws can only be ruled on, considering precedent. Why ignore precedents that already exist? This isn't the forum for that. Nfitz (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is BilledMammal’s source assessment table accurate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep, the "Significant coverage?" column in the table is subjective despite being presented as some kind of definitive indisputable assessment, and my own judgement would be that at least one of the sources (La Nouvelle République) does satisfy SIGCOV and therefore a GNG pass. Crowsus (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I would note that multiple sources are required for WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Liz 06:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hertz Nazaire

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet criteria for visual artists -- no works in museums, no substantial coverage DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment not notable as a painter for the reasons in the nom, but possibly as sickle cell activist? Found and added two sources on that, but not yet sure it's enough hence comment. Will keep looking Star Mississippi 19:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 19:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Mild Keep He's mentioned in a paragraph in a USA Today article, and Conneticut paper and in MIT and Univ of Conneticut newspapers. He's gotten a bit of traction. I also find a few paragraphs about him in Google Scholar, in a book . I think he passes notability tests. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete no substantial coverage. "mentions in 2 newspapers and 2 student papers" are mentions, , not substantial coverage. The "few paragraphs" in a book, are each 2 short sentences long. That's not substantial coverage. . "He's gotten a bit of traction." is pretty much the definition of Not Yet Notable. ` DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
DGG, just a heads up since there have been multiple relists and this was a while ago, you're the nom here. Star Mississippi 22:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Mild delete Gusfriend (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd relist in the hopes of generating more discussion. Are there enough sources available to pass WP:GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete The only sources that go into any detail are primary source interviews. Star Garnet (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Liz 06:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Armenia did not compete in Eurovision 2012, we do not have an article for Armenia in Eurovision 2021 where they also didn't compete, it should probably be redirected. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep/Redirect: Armenia had originally intended to participate in the 2012 contest as seen in the participant list released on 17 January 2012 and the results of the semi-final allocation draw held on 25 January, before subsequently withdrawing in March 2012. The article should therefore either remain in its current form or, given that much of the details on this article are covered in the ESC 2012 and Armenia in Eurovision articles, be converted into a redirect. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep: article is part of a series, and I think that 2021 should have an article too, and not the opposite. Would vote delete if it was an uncontroversial withdrawal or refusal to participate. - Kevo (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: We do have an article in place for Armenia in 2021, however as there were no announcements from AMPTV before their withdrawal all necessary contents are featured in other articles and the participation article is being redirected. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Redirect/Merge I believe this information could be incorporated into the main Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest article. A simple merge will appear somewhat WP:UNDUE given the detail for other years, but that's because the history section in that article is rather thin at the moment. It should still make sense long term. There is also already mention of 2012 on the more specific Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest article. Between these two other articles there should still be a complete picture detailing this attempted participation. Grk1011 (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 20:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete/merge. Seems to be on the edge of notability, but most sources are either Russian or dead. Better to just cover this on the broader articles. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. There is clearly no agreement on whether or not the sources found by Cunard show that a detailed article can be written on this subject. Ritchie333 12:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

SudShare

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this was recently closed as Keep (non-admin closure) it occurred over a holiday period and although I was more than half-way through the references I was not in a position to comment. I opened a discussion on the Talk page with the original author (COI declared, all above board) and I can immediately see their grasp on our NCORP guidelines is flawed, as were those of the editor that moved from draft only to then nominate for deletion (that is *not* the way to do things, if you're not sure then don't move from drafts to mainspace). There is extensive analysis of sources on the articles Talk space and I can duplicate it here if necessary. None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability there topic fails HighKing 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. HighKing 12:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. HighKing 12:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I would have had voted "delete" in the 1st nomination. But, I refrained because of Timtrent's advice not to involve in any of the pages where the particular AfC reviewer of this page has worked before based on a conversation at WP:ANI. Ideally, all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly. But, this was not the case with the 1st nomination because of a non-admin closure. So, I hope and believe that we are not violating WP:DRV norms of 6 months waiting/cooling period. If that's the case, then I support the 2nd nomination on this page, and I agree with the nominator's assessment. - Hatchens (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hatchens Thanks for the input! :) I think as long as the votes/comments of the first nomination are included in the consideration of the closer, this is probably a fair renomination (as the facts on the ground haven't changed since then, and it would create a statistical bias not to include them). That being said, I do find myself a bit miffed to still be here, as I don't really enjoy debating policy and would rather move on to projects I don't have a COI in. Alas, here I still am lol Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment I had hoped to be able to respond to @HighKing's comments on the SudShare talk page before they re-nominated it for deletion, but I've been dealing with a rather intense flare-up of some chronic health issues this past week or so, and didn't have the ability to respond until now. I apologize for that delay, and for not informing anyone I was dealing with that, leading to a fragmented discussion. I'm going to try to respond to the issues brought up in detail below, but it may take me a while due to lack of energy, and I beg the nominator's/closer's patience if I haven't responded within the normal time limit. Obviously I can't ask you to delay closing if too much time passes, and hopefully this won't even be an issue and I'll be able to respond in full today, but just in case, I feel I owe it to the community to explain my delayed response. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep (with acknowledgment that I have a conflict of interest as a former employee of SudShare). Okay, so there's a lot to discuss here, so I'm going to break my reply up into smaller segments for reading/editing comprehension. I will also be relying on the assumption that editors reading this have already read the discussion on the SudShare talk page, and will continue where that left off. Please let me know if you have any issues with my formatting, or if you need a quick recap of the preceding discussion.

The first issue that I'd like to bring up here is that of the concept of "puff pieces," their definition, and how they relate to WP:NCORP. The reason I'm bringing this up is because HighKing (who, it should be noted, I think is a pretty awesome editor in general, although I'm arguing against a large swath of his past AfD comments) uses the concept extensively to dismiss a large number of sources (for failing NCORP specifically) on both the SudShare page as well as many other pages nominated for AfD in the past. This, I believe, is due to a (good faith) mistaken impression both of what a "puff piece" actually is, and how that effects notability concerns. For reference, here is HighKing's definition of a "puff piece," as taken from the SudShare talk page discussion.

"First this has nothing to do with the reputation of a journalist, it has to do with the content. In general, "puff pieces" have a particular format which usually goes includes all or most of the following "Define problem, describe AHA moment, describe solution, describe funding, describe wins/successes, vague future comments". That article fits the bill therefore its a puff piece. And there's nothing to say that a reputable journalist doesn't do puff pieces."

This definition is commendable for its clarity, but differs significantly from the commonly accepted meaning of the term. How do I know this? Well, let's take a look at this excellent article from the Wall Street Journal on the history and definition of the term:

In the classic journalism textbook “News Reporting and Writing,” Melvin Mencher defines “puff piece” or “puffery” as a “publicity story or a story that contains unwarranted superlatives.”....a 1732 article in London Magazine explains that “puff” is a “cant word” (or bit of jargon) “for the applause that writers or booksellers give their own books &c. to promote their sale.”....In legal usage, “puffery” took on the meaning of overblown advertising based on subjective claims.....“Puff piece” has continued to grow as a derisive jab against fawning media accounts—as has its antonym “hatchet job,” for an unfair attack on someone or something.....to someone predisposed to dislike the subject matter, even the most dispassionate report might look like a puff piece.

Note that there is no mention in this article, or in any article I could find with a quick google search, that defines a "puff piece" as a piece of media with any specific format, as described by HighKing. Rather, the generally accepted definition seems to be a piece of media loaded with "unwarranted superlatives," very similar to Misplaced Pages's own definition of MOS:PUFFERY (also see WP:PUFF, and WP:BUZZ): "positively loaded language" designed to promote the subject of an article. This does not mean that any and every article which only talks about positive aspects of a person, corporation, or entity is a puff piece, but rather that puff pieces are specifically loaded with unwarranted superlatives.

Secondly, let's assume that an article is indeed a "puff piece" as described by HighKing. Does that make any difference in assessing notability for WP:NCORP or WP:BIO? I would argue that the answer is clearly no. Looking at WP:PUFF, WP:BUZZ, and MOS:PUFFERY, it is notable that all of these pages are about writing style within Misplaced Pages, not that of outside sources. It's a matter of common sense (and I'm sure there's an explicit policy about it somewhere) that sources do not have to follow WP:MOS to be establish notability or reliability. Rather, the core question is if the source can be trusted to be truthful (even if it does not contain a complete history of the subject), and if discussion of the subject can be considered "significant" (if one wishes to use the source to establish notability). The "feel" of the article, quite simply, does not and should not play a role here. The one exception to the above rule of thumb, per WP:NEWSORG, is that if the article is clearly an opinion piece, or if the publisher has a reputation for inaccuracy, then it should not be used in most contexts. If an article contains excessive "unwarranted superlatives," than of course we shouldn't use it to establish WP:NCORP, but if it merely follows the format that HighKing describes, that should not influence our judgement when considering NCORP decisions at AfD.

One objection that I can imagine being made at this point is that I'm failing to consider WP:ORGIND. This is not so. To paraphrase from ORGIND:

There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources: Independence of the author (the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product), and independence of the content (the content must not be produced by interested parties)

If an independent journalist with a reputation for fact checking and honesty writes an article which is generally favorable towards a company (but does not cross over into an opinion piece), that does not violate ORGIND, although you may personally wish the journalist had dug up some dirt on the company during her coverage or something. To assume that any positive coverage must be the work of company insiders, even when dealing with, for example, a front-page article on a 16-times Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper just doesn't seem right to me. Yes, we must do our due diligence to insure that corporations aren't "gaming the system," but this reading of NCORP seems to be going way too far, which is why I have chosen to start off by talking about this.

I will continue my discussion (and subsequent points/responses) in a reply to this below, when I have the energy to continue writing.

Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Response It is notable that you've taken a nit-picking approach to my use of the term "puff piece" - fine, call it a "puff profile" then so that there's no overlap with the other term.

Most of your argument is designed to avoid the actual test we use to determine whether ORGIND or CORPDEPTH has been met. (Hint: We read the actual words in the actual article.) Your entire argument above can be summed up as a modification to ORGIND along the lines of 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 *except* if its an independent journalist with a reputation for fact checking and honesty. It is fairly easy to predict where we'd end up if we went down this particular road. Please see WP:LAWYER.

In our discussions to date, I've asked you to point to specific content within any of those articles which meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND and I'm still waiting. HighKing 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

~~Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)~~

Response HighKing I apologize for the "nitpicky" style of my my argument so far. You're also totally correct that I haven't yet addressed the specific content within the articles here in favor of a more abstract approach. I can understand your concern that I'm leaning dangerously close to Wikilawyering, and I'll try to be better about that in the future (though some of this is just my personal long-winded style, and for that I can't honestly promise I'll be better, since I'm quite terrible at condensing my thoughts).

First however, just to answer your objection, I'm afraid that there might have been a misunderstanding. The core of my above argument was simply that your criteria for determining that something is a "puff piece," "puff profile," or whatever you wish to call it, is a disqualifying criteria that seems to be of your own invention, rather than originating in something within CORPDEPTH, ORGIND, other Misplaced Pages guidelines, or historical definitions (though you're right that the latter was irrelevant, and I apologize for getting carried away). That is to say, my understanding is that the "test we use to determine whether ORGIND or CORPDEPTH has been met" is to check if the content can be clearly attributable to an independent party, regardless of if that third party is writing in a format you've identified that you don't personally like or not. I did not mean to imply that we should simply trust journalists with solid reputations, though looking back, I see how my words could have easily been read that way. One place where journalistic reputation does genuinely come into play is when we're dealing with a known bad actor (such as fake news sites, tabloids, and some trade journals), which I brought up with the intention of saying that that isn't what we are dealing with here. Additionally, as per WP:CORPDEPTH, (under the "Numerical facts" subheading), "the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent." This clearly seems to indicate that we can indeed be more trusting of the independence of a reputable source, though that should in no way stop us from doing due diligence. Sincere apologies for the confusion, and I hope this helps you understand my position more clearly.

Okay, now on to specifics! I'll be going in the order of the articles you brought up in your last comment on the SudShare talk page, rather than in order of what I personally find to be the "strongest" sources, so I will be bringing up some genuinely borderline cases here, which I expect we might reasonably disagree on. I've also skipped a number of references brought up that you've either successfully convinced me aren't valid for NCORP (if you want I'd be happy to list them), or which we've already discussed to the point that I don't think further clarification on my part will help (happy to list those as well, of course, if you feel that would be useful).

With regards to the ESPN Sioux Falls reference, as discussed before, it does use a previously-written Sioux Falls article as its jumping-off point, but, I would argue, adds significant enough "original and independent opinion" and analysis to be considered independent for the purposes on NCORP. (For reference, the relevant quote in full is "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." Note the use of the words " must include" rather than "must consist solely of"—I think there was some confusion about that in your initial comment on the talk page). The relevant independent opinion and analysis in the article is as follows (apologies in advance for the length, but as you asked for direct quotes...):
"Doing laundry is one of those universal chores that fall under the heading of nuisance. You know you need to do it for health and social reasons. After all, family members and friends prefer to spend time around loved ones who don't smell like 10-year-old sneakers. Plus, it's just not good form to wear the same t-shirt for two weeks, or turn your underwear inside out and wear it again! But you're busy, very busy! So busy that your hamper is overflowing. Or for some people, your bedroom floor is covered with so many dirty clothes, it looks and smells like a garbage dump. Or you're lazy, very lazy! Your trunk or truck bed has bags and bags of so many clothes, you no longer remember what might be in them. You only know for sure that your favorite pair of jeans has been missing for a month. Busy or lazy, it doesn't matter anymore........Obviously, there are a lot of people out there who simply hate doing laundry, because SudShare is now available in 400 cities, with more being added all the time. If you decide to hire a “Sudster” the typical customer can expect to pay $35 to $40 per service. That is of course unless you had to rent a Pod, which is currently sitting on your driveway full of your dirty laundry!"
This clearly includes significant Independent content, as defined above, primarily though rather colorful opinion/analysis. As someone (with a declared conflict of interest) who was an employee of SudShare at the time this article came out, I can assure you that no executive there would have signed off on an article straight up calling customers lazy. If that isn't independent of the company, I don't know what is!
- With regards to the Sioux Falls article the ESPN article is based on, I think it might be (weakly) arguable that the use of cross-referencing the company's statements (such as the amount of money they claim can be made by contractors) with those of independent contractors counts as "fact checking". Probably not worth investigating further in this context, but I can imagine situations in which that sort of consideration could be relevant.
You've previously dismissed The Root article as being about the product, rather than the company, and asked me to specify where the company as a whole is discussed. Here are some relevant passages from the article, with some sections that are clearly about the company rather than the product in bold:
I haven’t been to a laundromat in eons and frankly, all of the ones close to me are probably drug fronts. Luckily, this new gig-economy has created a service that does all of the heavy lifting for you: SudShare. SudShare—and no this is not an ad—is an app that lets you outsource your laundry. You put all your clothes in bags and then a person comes to pick the stuff up and then they wash, dry, fold and then return your clothes back to you by the 8 p.m. the next day at $1 a pound.....While I feel a way about some random stranger both washing my clothes and HAVING THEM for so long—real talk, they could just decide not to deliver my clothes to me, kind of like that time I watched my UberEats driver drive RIGHT past my house doing like 65 mph with my order of Popeyes only to never be seen on the app again—I welcomed the opportunity to not have to fold everything.....So imagine my surprise when I’m getting clothes back folded, impressively so and more efficient and neatly than I do. I wasn’t prepared. I tipped one SudShare person $20 JUST because I was impressed with her folding. The way she folded my shirts gave me a new way to fold to maximize more space in my drawers....I was looking forward to having my clothes delivered so I could see what new and innovative ways folks are folding their clothes. I really didn’t know I cared this much about folded clothes until I had no choice but to have others wash my clothes. I’ve got new techniques and all.....Now thats not to say that the entire experience has been sweet. For instance, I’ve learned that many, many of you have no business washing OR folding folks clothes.....I have been testing certain clothes out, on purpose so I can build up a roster of folks who I’m fine with doing the wash; in SudShare you can request folks who have washed your clothes before.....I got one bag back of clothes and the socks weren’t even folded together. WHO DOES THAT? No (good) tip for you. Not to mention this same person didn’t even try to fold the shirts in a way that didn’t cause wrinkle-age....this SudSharer is basically the Alamo now—I’ll never forget. But I will say that I have mostly learned new and innovative ways to fold my clothes....With that said....this life starts to add up and ultimately nobody will care about my clothes the way that I do. But there are a few SudSharers who I now trust. They got good tips. And now my folded laundry looks different which is basically like having new clothes so it’s all win over here.
The WP:SNOWFLAKE aspect of SudShare is its business model of using independent contractors who wash at home, rather than at laundromats. That's not the product, that's the core of what makes the business notable. Yes, obviously a review talking about sudsters, the anxiety of giving away your laundry for someone else to do, and the way the company allows connections to form with the workers involves the product (cleaned clothes), but in this case that clearly isn't the focus for much of the article. It's a discussion about the concept of trust and ownership, how SudShare works as a unique business model, and the quality (or lack thereof) of its workers/contractors, not solely (or even primarily) a pure product review.
I had written a whole thing on the Baltimore Sun article, but saw that Cunard had already provided an excellent explanation with quotes about the notability and independence of the article below, so unless you have further issues or questions not answered there, I don't feel like it's necessary for me to further clutter up this page with what's already been stated.
From the FreightWaves article, lines like "As COVID demonstrated, people will pay a premium for convenience, and that holds true for laundry, as evidenced by the exponential growth of a company like SudShare" could be considered independent analysis, although the bulk of the article is definitely not.
You asked which portions of the other Sioux Falls article were independent. Here are a few quotes that to me at least, pretty clearly indicate independent analysis/opinion on how SudShare has impacted the workforce:
“Before this, I was doing factory work,” she said. “I did both for a while. And now I’m just doing (gig work) full time.” If you are in manufacturing, or logistics, or food processing, think about that. Stoopes could have been one of your employees. And, unlike what some continue to insist to me, it’s not that she’s sitting at home relying on government assistance. It’s not that she just decided to drop out of the workforce. It’s that instead of working on a production line, she’s in her car delivering other people’s groceries or in her laundry room washing and drying their clothes. And she loves it
....I see it in my own business constantly. My ability to attract and retain talent is highly influenced by my willingness to offer them as much control over their time as possible. That’s not always easy in a deadline-driven job. I fully recognize that working for us comes second to whatever is going on in their lives and that they will prioritize their time accordingly, and as a leader it’s ultimately on me to make it all work. That’s clearly more doable in some industries than others, which explains why some are suffering so acutely for workers, I think. You generally can’t let front-line health or safety workers create their own hours or work environment. Someone has to be in the kitchen cooking when the customer is there to eat. You can’t assemble a complex product or process a hog from home. But we as leaders also can benefit by thinking more like that teenager in Baltimore. And by remembering that just because we don’t necessarily see them, workers like Stoopes are creating their own version of work.....It’s possible to build culture and loyalty even in a more fragmented workplace. But, again, it takes a more modern approach. Fittingly, right after I spoke with my first Sudster, I stopped by Talent Draft Day, an event hosted this year by the University of Sioux Falls....USF president Brett Bradfield was one of many who heard me retell the story of the Sudster I’d just met earlier that day. It didn’t surprise him, either. “I’ve had some people ask me when I think things are going to get back to normal,” he told me. Neither one of us said anything for a moment, probably thinking the same thing. Forget normal. Change and disruption are the new normal. And if you’re struggling to hire, don’t forget about people like the Sudster.
I think this speaks for itself as an excellent independent opinion piece that uses an interview as a jumping-off point, but which ultimately meets NCORP with a unique reading of SudShare's employees and business practices through the lens of the changing workforce.

I hope all of this helps you understand why I believe in the notability of the SudShare article.

Yours, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment Was advised of this approach by Tim. Thanks. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Sources about it are very weak - just announcements and press releases, failing WP:ORGDEPTH utterly. If you read this, it reads like a business school case study analysis - "imagine you are the CEO of SudShare, a company which...; explain to a potential investor what your company does and why they should invest in it." Coverage is that which can be had by sending out press releases, not that which comes from having a notable impact on the world. New restaurants get announcements in local press when they open too. FalconK (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Falcon Kirtaran Confused by this analysis—sources like https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-prem-bz-pikesville-laundry-app-national-expansion-20211115-3yaj5mughzfrjkiwzh5fqfwinq-story.html and https://www.theroot.com/my-washer-broke-and-ive-had-to-outsource-my-favorite-ch-1846972718 aren't exactly "that which can be had by sending out press releases," and are not primarily local in content. Regardless, what matters for NCORP is if the information in an article is produced/fact checked by independent parties or not, and how a journalist finds out about a given company in the first place shouldn't be relevant unless they specifically rely on press releases for the content itself, which is not being done here. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You say "what matters for NCORP is if the information in an article is produced/fact checked by independent parties or not" which is largely correct, but you've omitted the bit that says the fact-checking must be "clearly attributable". You're trying to introduce an assumption that a journalist's integrity shouldn't be questioned and we should base a decision on the "quality" of the journalist. Nothing in the guidelines even comes close to this assumption and for good reason. HighKing 16:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment Just wanted to quickly note that a number of articles seem to have come out since the wiki page was last edited. ~~Some are probably relevant to the discussion, though others are probably not.~~ New articles include:

This MinneInno article about SudShare moving headquarters (probably useless for NCORP)
This front-cover article in Mishpacha Magazine, a family-oriented Jewish newspaper (I found out about it from my local Jewish community talking about it), which seems pretty in-depth: https://mishpacha.com/loads-of-profit/ This is almost certainly of relevance, and I highly recommend at least checking it out. (I personally think it should meet NCORP, though my guess is HighKing might consider it a "puff piece," as discussed above)
This interview, which isn't of any use on Misplaced Pages beyond serving as a new source for some non-controversial facts.
This article, which while seemingly partially based on past reporting, does also include some original reporting, which might be helpful.
This listicle article; make of it what you will (probably not much?)

Hope this is helpful :) Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The Mishpacha Magazine reference is a puff profile (my new phrase!) that follows the same dull format as all the others - "Define problem, describe AHA moment, describe solution, describe funding, describe wins/successes, vague future comments". This one even publishes a photo from the "Family archives". I mean, c'mon, are you even trying?

The Baltimore Magazine article is also a "puff profile". Not sure what "some original reporting" is meant to mean relative to our guidelines. If you mean ORGIND then you're gonna need to highlight which bit meets ORGIND because the article is *entirely* based on information provided by the company. HighKing 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

HighKing This isn't me "trying" or not, just posting some potentially relevant updates on the situation. In retrospect mentioning my personal opinion was a mistake here, since that wasn't my primary goal, and I didn't want to be adversarial (though I realize I've clearly come across that way). I'll try to address the details with quotes in the reply to our conversation above I'm working on, as per your request. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could help me with an aspect of your position I'm confused about—would you mind linking some Misplaced Pages articles about companies which haven't been the subject of controversy that you believe meet NCORP guidelines? I'm having a really hard time even imagining what an article of that sort would look like for you, which means I'm probably misunderstanding something about your position. Thanks, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yitzilitt (paid), I'll take it to your Talk page rather than cluttering this one up and for us to avoid WP:BLUD allegations. HighKing 17:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete: I have scratched my head over this one. I have also done a WP:BEFORE set of research. The problem is that it is impossible to find references that are not themselves Churnalism. That means thsi is WP:ADMASQ. The quantity of the references also shows WP:BOMBARD, unsurprising in articles for pay.
I find it fails WP:CORP. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Some of the articles include quotes from people affiliated with the company, but there is enough independent coverage to meet Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources and there is enough depth of coverage to meet Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage.
1. Mirabella, Lorraine (2021-11-15). "Pikesville father and son roll out national 'Uber for laundry' concept". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
  The article is an in-depth profile of the company. It includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but it also includes independent research and reporting. The article notes: "SudShare, which the teen launched four years ago with his father, an entrepreneur, now has customers in 400 cities who pay other people to wash their clothes. The service employs an army of gig-economy contractors, paid by the pound, to wash those clothes in their home laundry rooms. ... Like Uber, SudShare works through a scheduling app and on-demand pickup — of laundry, that is. For $1 per pound and a $20 minimum, customers can leave bags of clothes at their doors to be picked up, washed, dried, folded and delivered the next day."
  The article quotes from an independent expert:
  “I definitely think it’s a good idea,” said Marie Yeh, an associate professor of marketing at Loyola University Maryland’s Sellinger School of Business and Management. “I think it can work for the right consumer. There are going to be some consumers who aren’t going to like that idea of people touching your clothes.”
  But she can see it appealing to others, such as busy professionals who rely on shared laundry facilities or laundromats. A key, she believes, will be finding ways to retain enough reliable contractors to meet demand.
2. Hebron, Grace (January 2022). "Baltimore-Born App Allows Locals to Outsource Their Laundry: Somewhere between a rideshare service and a laundromat, SudShare has evolved to service 400 cities". Baltimore. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
  The article notes: "Since its local takeoff roughly three years ago, SudShare has evolved to service 400 cities, now with more than 55,000 Sudsters spread across the U.S. And though much has changed since 2018—the Fertel brothers moved to Minneapolis, MN, where SudShare is now headquartered—“Baltimore remains one of our biggest cities,” says Fertel."
3. Jackson, Panama (2021-05-27). "My Washer Broke and I've Had to Outsource My Favorite Chore—Washing Clothes. I've Learned a Few Things". The Root. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
  The author reviews her experiences with SudShare. I consider a review of the author's experiences and learnings with using SudShare to be significant coverage about SudShare. The article notes: "Luckily, this new gig-economy has created a service that does all of the heavy lifting for you: SudShare. SudShare—and no this is not an ad—is an app that lets you outsource your laundry. You put all your clothes in bags and then a person comes to pick the stuff up and then they wash, dry, fold and then return your clothes back to you by the 8 p.m. the next day at $1 a pound."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SudShare to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

- Response Almost none of the above argument by Cunard meets our NCORP guidelines. For example, a "review of the author's experiences" with the product/service is not applicable for establishing the notability of the company - if the topic was about the product/service then it might. Cunard's understanding of "Independent Coverage" ignores the requirement for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Cunard says an article "includes independent research" but then quotes a generic paragraph that has appeared in several of the other advertorials. Cunard also appears to misunderstand the requirement for such "Independent Content" to also assist with CORPDEPTH, the quotation from the marketing exec - that its a "good idea" - falls well short. HighKing 13:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  - I do not agree with the analysis that a "review of the author's experiences" is insufficient to establish notability under Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. It would not be beneficial to the reader to have the article only be about the company's product/service of providing laundry services through independent contractors. But if refocusing the article would change your viewpoint to support retention, then that is an option.
    Regarding "the quotation from the marketing exec", the quotation was not from a marketing executive. It was from a marketing university professor. The full quote is "“I definitely think it’s a good idea,” said Marie Yeh, an associate professor of marketing at Loyola University Maryland’s Sellinger School of Business and Management. “I think it can work for the right consumer. There are going to be some consumers who aren’t going to like that idea of people touching your clothes.” But she can see it appealing to others, such as busy professionals who rely on shared laundry facilities or laundromats. A key, she believes, will be finding ways to retain enough reliable contractors to meet demand." This is independent and detailed analysis from an expert at a university.
    Cunard (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
    - Response You're conflating the two different uses we make of references. The most common is to support facts within the article. The other is to establish notability. A "review of the author's experiences" with the *product* does not establish notability of the *company* - but like you say, it can still be used to support "fleshing out" the article and support facts, etc. When we say the reference fails NCORP, we're only ruling it out from assistingg in establishing notability, we're not banning its use. On the quote from the marketing professor, where's the "in-depth information" about the *company*? It's a throwaway opinion of little content, does not assist in establishing notability because there's isn't enough from her. HighKing 22:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Pinging Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SudShare participants: Nomadicghumakkad (talk · contribs), Caleb Stanford (talk · contribs), Yitzilitt (paid) (talk · contribs), and Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete: as per nom. and in complete agreement with the reasons provided by Timtrent, and Falcon Kirtaran. - Hatchens (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete Essentially an advertisement. Almost all the references are press releases or announcements. I notice that a number of the sources suggest as acceptable above contain extensive information--on prices, and details of using the system, which is not encyclopedic content . The definition of promotional content is content intended to appeal to the prospective user, and almost every one of these qualifies. (They all tend to copy each other, which is a good sign that they're derived form the same press release) The reason for the promotional coverage in so many local sources is, of course, that during the pandemic a great many people were looking for such services--we should indeed cover this, but in general articles and a very few of the refs above might be useful there. Google and the thousands of local web sites did an excellent job covering the possibilities--I have an extensive collection of links relevant to my area, and probably so do many of us. Despite the evident desires of some former officers of the WMF, we shouldn't try to duplicate Google.

I should add that. the function of a paid editor is to write encyclopedic content on topics relevant to their employer, if they are able to do so, not argue that promotional content is encyclopedic . They should submit the content, and let the rest of us decide about it. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment I concur with DGG. I do not expect, ever, an article by a paid editor to be at AfD precisely because they are paid to:

know, understand, and implement our policies
write good, clean copy
avoid any form of advertorial
hit the ground running
eschew WP:BOMBARD

In short I expect them to write good, clean, well referenced copy. I expect it not be subject to a subsequent deletion process. Their arguing against deletion is ludicrous for a paid editor. Improving the article to seek to ensure it is kept is their job. It is either notable, or it is not. At present it is not. Period. Fiddle Faddle 11:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Timtrent, DGG Although I am a paid editor, I am also a human being (shocking, I know!). If I see an article I worked on get nominated for deletion due to a perceived lack of notability, and I believe that the nominator has made a mistake in their reasoning and the subject of the article is indeed notable, I am going to defend it. Expecting a paid editor's work to be so perfect that nobody else could even possibly disagree with them seems rather strange to me. And if somebody disagrees with me and wants to delete an article I wrote, then as a human being who values their work, I'm going to try to explain why I value that article as a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to be completely silent in such matters. Of course, I will respect the AFD process, and if at the end of the day it turns out I'm wrong, I will try to accept that and move on. But for now, I want my position to at least be properly represented here for the record, which I cannot expect will automatically be done without me. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment Timtrent, DGG I was privately told that I'd made a serious mistake earlier, and I want to acknowledge and apologize for that mistake. The formatting of my first comment started with the words "keep" in bold, which I included, thinking it was merely an indicator of the direction of the statement to follow, rather than a vote itself. I was totally wrong about that, and what I did actually indicated I was voting myself, which you accurately pointed out as being deeply inappropriate. I didn't understand what the issue was until now, and I apologize for my earlier defensive tone and misleading inclusion of the bolded format. I've struck out that statement above, and ask the closer not to count my comments as a vote. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yitzilitt (paid) From my perspective you are perfectly entitled to offer the opinion that it be kept as long as (since this is an article for pay) you do that from your paid account and only from that account. I see you did that. As you know you may offer the formal bolded opinion once and once only. I believe you have done that, albeit struck out. I see no objection to your removing the striking out. Authors are allowed their opinion. It would be awful were that not so.

What you may wish to consider is that those who offer rebuttals to every opinion that runs counter to their desires seem not to prevail in these discussions. Less truly is more in AfD discussions. One good arrow fired once with excellent policy based arguments is all one needs. The closing admin will weigh policy based arguments in their close. Fiddle Faddle 22:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent Thanks for the advice, I'll unstrike my previous strikethrough (and will add a note to the effect that I've done just that). As both you and now also Elemimele have pointed put, less is more here, and I've lowered my chance of success by my long-winded replies. If you don't mind me asking, how do you typically manage to pull off minimalism? This is my first time seriously defending an article at AfD, and I'm finding it very difficult to be concise. What I mean by that (oh god I'm doing it now aren't I) is that either 1) I'll say something, and then people's responses indicate that they misunderstood what I was trying to say, so I want to reply to be more clear about what I intended, or 2) Someone else will say something that I think is incorrect/misguided, and if nobody else has pointed that out (especially if the issue at play is a subtle one), I feel compelled to reply with a technical counter-argument. Regarding 2, I guess what you're saying is that the closer will be competent enough to figure that out on their own, so I don't need to worry about that (though it might give me a lot of anxiety lol), but for 1, the issue is probably on me and my imperfect writing skills, so I don't feel like I can assume even a closer would get what I meant to say if I don't clarify myself.

I've read the AfD guidelines of course, but I still feel rather lost when it comes to social norms here. If I'm breaking any of them now, please forgive me/let me know. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yitzilitt (paid) I will respond on your talk page. There is a danger of diverting this discussion Fiddle Faddle 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete: (1) because all the information I can find is routine churnalism/interviews/standard promotional press-releases, and (2) because if we don't delete, we send a message that anyone can get their company advertised in Misplaced Pages merely by interminable polite bludgeoning and wearing everyone down with walls of text. Elemimele (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep per the sourcing in the article and that provided by Cunard. Responding to @HighKing: The most common is to support facts within the article. The other is to establish notability. A "review of the author's experiences" with the *product* does not establish notability of the *company* this criticism of the sources isn't necessarily wrong but ignores an important nuance: our notability guidelines mainly exist to make sure that the articles we have have enough coverage that they can be useful to our readers while being based off of reliable sources. Nit-picking about whether a source covers a product or a corporation isn't productive; it would not make sense to have an article simply on the SudShare product given that the product effectively is the corporation. And no, I don't think damnatio memoriae is warranted for this company either. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between making sure articles are useful (by including information on products for example) and using product reviews as references for establishing notability. Two different tasks, two different objectives. Nit-picking about which references may be used to establish notability is called following the guidelines. If the company is notable (as established by references that meet NCORP) then by all means have a section on the product/service. HighKing 20:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. The issue here is whether this man was notable outside of his alleged connection to Anne Frank. If not, our guidelines suggest that he should be covered in an article about her, if at all. But arguments have been made here that he was in fact notable for other reasons, based on the sources cited in the article. And on that question, there's no consensus in this discussion. Sandstein 08:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Arnold van den Bergh (notary)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:1E. Obscure notary who in a recent book was accused of possibly being the betrayer of Anne Frank. That accusation is disputed (as noted in the article) and subject has no notability other than that disputed allegation. Should be deleted or merged into Anne Frank. If his guilt was not disputed and was well-established, there would be justification for a separate article on this person. But it is disputed and is not well-established or accepted by scholars at this point in time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: "Obscure" is not really the right word here… please try to keep any proposal WP:NPOV and contribute personal viewpoints as part of the discussion. —Sladen (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete The theory about his involvement is already covered in Anne Frank#Source of discovery. Cullen328 (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:1E as per nominator. I concur with the nominator's full reasoning. At this time, a blurb on this accusation in the Anne Frank article is sufficient. Safiel (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment (as noted elsewhere). I'm slightly unclear how facilitating the Jacques Goudstikker / Alois Miedl / Hermann Göring art stuff (returned via the 2006 Goudstikker restitution of 202 paintings) would fit on the Anne Frank article. Presently there is a single sentence in the article body related to the Frank theory, balanced by another sentence citing a counter-argument. —Sladen (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete per above, fails WP:1E. Severe storm 28 22:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Details sourced information about his life aside from his alleged implication in the Anne Frank arrest. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete Per nominators arguments. MartinWilder (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep per DrewieStewie's arguments. Ordnerud (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete per my nomination. There would be no article were it not for the controversial Anne Frank claim, hence my citing of WP:1E. The article has been expanded since the nomination, utilizing largely Dutch-language original research/synthesis. based on fragmentary references such as one mention of the man in this document (see p. 76) to flesh out his supposed role in another controversy, using enormously lengthy footnotes to flesh out the synthesis. Lamentably the expanded material only adds other issues and does not address notability concerns. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Coretheapple:, appreciations for returning to Misplaced Pages, and contributing additional input.

It is fairly usual that articles get expanded: for example, if an editor raises concerns about WP:Notability, it is usual to see additional citations added, documenting WP:Notability.
We can see a new edit Special:Diff/1068130241/1068867655 (from yesterday) tagging {{Original research}} and, here on the AfD, also stating "lengthy footnotes" but… inspection of the article shows zero footnotes and all sentences individually referenced, including with |quote= and |trans-quote= for the benefit of readers (and editors) who may find working with scans of historic documents in multiple languages difficult—a situation unavoidable when the subject was active 70‒100 years ago, and in The Netherlands.
Likewise, the formatting of Dutch names can vary; so in An interim Report on the Art Activities of Hermann Goering (1945) (cited fully in the article, and URL-linked above) the subject is named as both "van der Bergh" and "A. v.d. Bergh". To assist readers (and other editors) these names have been wikilinked using {{ill}} so that transcription differences like Hermann Göring/Goering are (hopefully) less confusing to readers (and editors).

In summary: editors are generally happy to attempt to address any concerns and to improve articles (that is the basis of Misplaced Pages), but it requires effort (and cooperation) on the part of those initiating AfD (and/or similar processes) to clearly spell out (ie. precisely and exactly) those concerns. Is that something you'd be willing to do? —Sladen (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep Easily. Not only did this so-called event or his alleged role change the course of history, but the article clearly states and sources that he was a notable notary during his life. That's all that matters here. Trillfendi (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep - with multiple sources, and seems to make reasonable claims of notability, think its an easy keep. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 08:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
(Follow-up) Comment: @Coretheapple (initiator) …another week has gone by without initiating a discussion on Talk:Arnold van den Bergh (nor replying at this AfD) regarding the precise basis for subsequently adding {{Original research}} and {{Primary sources}} tags.
Per WP:WTRMT " strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed", then it would appear appropriate to remove those newly-added {{Original research}} and {{Primary sources}} tags: because without having precise details, it will remain (extremely) difficult to attempt to "address" any asserted problems.
—Sladen (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC) (Note, in the mean-time Gidonb, enacted by Synoman Barris, have moved the article to Arnold van den Bergh).
Sladen, shit I didn't notice the AFD tag on the article when moving it, otherwise I could have declined it immediately. I don't know what's wrong with my browser that I could see it. I will revert my move until this AFD is closed. Cheers and thanks for the ping Megan B.... till the end of time 10:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris:, don't think there was actually a problem with the move. It was simply noting that the Article (and therefore the Talk: page—where Coretheapple might have left any reply—would have also moved during the course of discussion. (And there appears to still be no reply, so the matter is somewhat mute). —Sladen (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm unaware of a problem moving when in AfD. Maybe someone could explain this one to me. We always continue improving articles while in AfD! I saw the article as it was in AfD. Please move again to the correct location right after the discussion because, as we have no article on another person by this name, this is a totally trivial move and the current name is WRONG. I would have rather had it at the correct location all the time. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gidonb:, again, don't think there is/was a problem with proposing the move. The (notary) disambiguated article name was following Dutch Misplaced Pages and because there's another Arnold van den Bergh (1857‒1932) (also from Oss…) (one of the sons of Simon van den Bergh who was was involved with Margarine Unie and founding of the Unilever empire. (ie. a disambig might be better in the long-run). Regarding "after the discussion", if the article should be kept/deleted, then please say so (here on the AfD), along with justification!… —Sladen (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sladen, I did say so here and on the other page. We should never disambiguate where there is nothing to disambiguate, just because of some situation at Nlwiki. Went into lots of trouble and now a necessary improvement is undone. Synoman Barris, can you put the article back at Arnold van den Bergh? Your first move was perfect! gidonb (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Gidonb,Sladen Per WP:EDITATAFD there is a clause Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion and Articles at AFD's should never be created into redirects. If this article is kept just post a request at WP:RM/TR or a ping will do and it will be immediately moved back. Cheers Megan B.... till the end of time 07:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Synoman Barris, thanks. Will do. gidonb (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep; there's no justification in merging such a lot of information about van den Bergh into the Anne Frank article because the evidence is so disputed. Nevertheless, the accusation links him to a piece of history that is very relevant and interesting to WP's readers, who may therefore have a legitimate interest in his background and who he was. I know this is close to notability-by-inheritance, but it's more about fulfilling an encyclopaedia's role of providing background to important subjects and periods in history. He also clearly played a much wider role in society at the time, and there is no shortage of stuff written about him, even before the allegations. I think it's interesting enough, and well-enough sourced, to keep. Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Re your point and Sladen's above, since this nomination the article has been padded with primary sources, and synthesis. There are no secondary sources for the new material added. With that surplusage stripped out, there is very little that needs to be added to the Anne Frank article as it currently exists, if anything. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. If an article about the village Honchyi Brid is created, this article can be undeleted via WP:REFUND for the purpose of merging it into the village article (to the extent editorial consensus supports that). Sandstein 08:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Honchy Brid massacre

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD had three sock puppets voting to keep out of 5 keep votes -->. I'm re-nominating it for deletion due to unreliable and low-quality references used that do not meet ArbCom's recommendation for this topic area - also a case of dubious notability. GizzyCatBella🍁 04:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Query who were the 3 sockpuppets? The only one I can see confirmed is User:Polska jest Najważniejsza Mztourist (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Mztourist - and - globally banned user, ArbCom block. GizzyCatBella🍁 12:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Argument about socks is ad hominem (I have no opinion on the presumed socks, but article deletion discussion concerns the article). The mentioned Arbcom amendment is about challenging specific sources, so please state which sources are challenged and why. Regarding notability, please explain which threshold in a guideline is not met. —Michael Z. 18:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BASIC. For any claim of a massacre I expect to see reliable independent sources not from the country/group claiming that the massacre took place. Mztourist (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Wow, User:Mztourist! Please review WP:BIAS and rethink your comment. Den (The Day) is a reliable journalistic source, and the fact that Ukrainian citizens work for it isn’t a reason to denigrate it. And isn’t the BBC from an acceptable country/group? —Michael Z.
- Wow, user:Mzajac WP:BIAS is at the front of my mind when I consider that only Ukrainian sources are reporting a massacre in Ukraine, just like when only Vietnamese sources report massacres from the Vietnam War. The BBC Ukraine story is about the "Volyn tragedy", it doesn't mention a supposed "Honchy Brid massacre". Mztourist (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  User:Mztourist , yes, it says in Honchyi Brid he commemorated Ukrainians killed during events of the Volyn Tragedy. See Volyn tragedy#Ukrainian casualties. I don’t know what you mean about Vietnam—are non-Ukrainian reliable sources disputing this? —Michael Z. 04:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete as mentioned in original discussion, this is not discussed in major works on the subject (Motyka etc) and it only shows up in a couple obscure media outlets because of a one time event (WP:NOTNEWS). Volunteer Marek 00:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete -- Many atrocities were committed in the latter part of WWII. Many may well be recorded by the equivalent of a war memorial. I do not think we can have an article on every war memorial. I note that we only have a redlink for the village. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment. Such events should be notable, and I feel uneasy voting for deletion (see also my comment in the prior AfD). A good compromise would be a merger to the article about a village. Which, sadly, as Peter observed above, doesn't exist, but it's an easy fix; the village as articles on several Wikipedias including Polish and Ukrainian. The Polish entry is very bare bones (pl:Gończy Bród), but the uk:Гончий Брід is much more substantial. Any chance some Ukrainian-speaker active here could stub the village entry? Ping User:Mzajac (your usepage says uk-2, I think it's the best out of the participants here)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus (grandson of Herodes Atticus)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a bare name in a family tree, fails WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Avilich (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Seems kind of pointless for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete -- There is nothing in the article but genealogy. Athens at this date was a provincial town, not a capital, so that connection to an Archon is insignificant. I suspect the same applies to several of those linked from the article too. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Robby Maria

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He made a Self-PR. Nor relevant for Misplaced Pages. No good Sources. --Tromla (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment, I have fixed the formatting on this and added it to 18th Jan AfD list, as it was not live until this point (despite the afd page being created on 15th Jan). I have no opinion on the afd itself. Bungle 18:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bungle 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bungle 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bungle 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment Another weirdly sourced article, where the citations only give the titles of the page they link to. Seems like excessive citations, some seem almost useless. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment There are several articles in German or another language posted on issuu.com which would seem in-depth, but since I cannot read them, I will not be voting. Should someone confirm these articles check out and are in-depth, then I will change my vote to Keep. Chelokabob (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is borderline malpractice. What’s labeled “German National TV“ is a municipal Public-access television station. The six sources for the introduction are mostly dead, the GND link works but does not, and has never, mentioned anything connected to the paragraph. I can definitely say that there is not and was never a ‘cult following’. The Teehaus Open Air is some beer garden’s summer promo event, and the only serious source is the Rheinische Post (mislabeled and typo’ed “Rhur something”. The others are street zines that take whatever contributions they get, the Böblinger something is the artist’s very very local paper doing a local-guy-makes-it-big-in-regional-sub center routine. K. Oblique 18:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The German Wiki article is now deleted. Tromla (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was Nomination withdrawn.. Liz 05:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Angela Garcia Combs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:FILMMAKER. Other than the lack of subject specific coverage, I don't think having made a film that has been reviewed by blogs and a screenplay that is in a library is enough to establish notability. BriefEdits (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep. The film has been reviewed by The Hollywood Reporter, in the review it states that "Director-screenwriter Angela Garcia Combs has a habit of telling rather than showing when it comes to her characters, meaning that we know Louise is smart and great at her job because her boss keeps telling her so rather than seeing her in action, using her acumen to, say, find her way around closing a tricky deal." Variety review: "A character-driven showcase for the talents of helmer Angela Garcia Combs". Work has won significant critical attention, passess WP:FILMMAKER. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Кирилл С1: Thanks for the links. I would generally say that one film isn't enough to constitute WP:FILMMAKER because then we'd just have an article on that film instead. But I'm open to discussion. — BriefEdits (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ - After research online and at the Misplaced Pages Library, and some revisions to the article, I think it may be possible per WP:NFILM to create an article about Nothing Special, e.g. The Olympian 2010, THR 2011, LA Weekly 2011, Variety 2011, but WP:FILMMAKER notability does not seem supported by these reviews. The article also mostly relies on primary and non-independent sources for biographical and career information, to the extent it has citations, and there do not appear to be sufficient secondary sources available to support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC) However, based on the sources found by Pburka, I am updating my !vote to keep per WP:CREATIVE due to her collective body of work and the independent reviews that could be incorporated into the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep. The article is largely about her notable film, Nothing Special. If someone wants to spend a few minutes they could easily reorganize the article and move it to Nothing Special (film), but moves during deletion discussions are discouraged. However, I note that some of her other works may also be notable, for example Missouri Waltz (see Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Backstage, L.A. Times, L.A. Weekly). pburka (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Rescind nomination Per Pburka. Not really knowledgable about theatre but that amount of coverage will probably suggest that it is a notable piece of theater. My cynicism wants to discount it as mill local theater coverage (it's rather difficult to tell with LA) but I think I can err on the side of notability and just clean up the article instead. — BriefEdits (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Liz 04:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Westford School of Management, Sharjah

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article violates WP:NPOV as seen in the lead of the page and has only one reference on the page, which is a link to their own website. I searched up looking for articles to improve the page but it seems like there isn't a good variety of sources to choose from, only one source which is from Gulf News as far as what I could find. The page reads like a clear advertisment which violates WP:PROMOTION. I feel this page is not ready as yet to be in the mainspace, let me know your thoughts. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 08:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 08:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 08:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete the article is written like an add and only contains a single reference, which appears to be primary. I couldn't find anything that would constitute in-depth coverage of the school when I looked either. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

James Quincy Butler

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POL by quite a long shot, unelected politician who's media attention is based on his fringe candidacy Bangabandhu (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 8. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 02:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
keep : He meets WP:POLITICIAN as he served for the government as Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner. I also see a few indepth articles about him. Caphadouk (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Click on the link for ANC. Its the lowest level of DC government. Many of the positions are unopposed. WP:POL requires a position of some significance.Bangabandhu (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I am hesitant about treating even the city coulcil of DC as like a state legislature, but anything below that level is just ludicrous. Even in states, nor all position that is elected on a statewide basis confers automatic notability. In Michigan where I live, we elect by state-wide direct balot the boards that oversee the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University. While in the MSU case in the wake of the Nassar scandal, there has been significant coverage of who is on the board and the board races, I am not ready to grant that every member of the MSU board in 1970 is default notable. These 3 boards were created by the 1962 Michigan constitution. That constitution actually shortened the number of offices elected on a state-wide basis though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The policy states "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" ... So all politicians holding some sort of government or state office qualify. Nowhere I see here stating that only high level politicians qualify. If you can enlighten me as to how you came up with that conclusion, let me know. Plus the subject qualifies just based on news coverage and meeting WP:GNG. Caphadouk (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Well the language you quote says "state-wide". In this case there are 39 ANCs, each one covering one of the 39 portions the District is divided into. People are members of one ANC, there is one council for each of the 39 areas. So this is not a district wide position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete being part of the ANC in Washington DC clearly does not come even remotely close to meeting the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete falls well beneath WP:NPOL which does not include "all politicians holding some sort of government or state office" being covered and even if we consider Washington, DC as a state (which it is not) the ANC would not qualify because it has zero legislative duties or power. Campaign coverage and local political reporting generally do not contribute to WP:GNG per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- The actual wording is something like first-level subdivisions in a federal style government. However the District of Columbia's unique status makes it less than clear that it meets that criteria. However since the ANCs have no legislative power the point is moot. We do not grant default notability to members of county councils/commissions/legislature/whatever else they may be called, even though in many cases they do have at least some legislative power (an in the case of true county commissions they are also to some extent the county executive, although there are several bodies called "county commission" that have the name basically as a legacy of the way things used to be, and no longer have legislative power, this is true of the 3 county cmissions in the tri-county Detroit Metro area where I live for example).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
KEEP " First, this page qualifies due to significant news coverage such as , and .

Second, I want to point out that the numerator of this page has made significant edits to Muriel Bowser's page who is the current mayor of DC and also running again in the 2022 race against the subject. I suspect a policitail COI here, so maybe his vote should not be considered. Cuteblkguy (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe the nominator is just interested in DC politics?? Bangabandhu's edits to Muriel Bowser include noting the rise in homicides during her administration and and a controversy surrounding one of her appointments so if they do have a COI the Bowser campaign should probably be asking for their money back. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course I'm happy to give you a cut of the funds GPL93. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

LOL. Remember we do not wait for elections to be over to see if someone may become notable in the end of the election. If someone is not notable but running for a position that will make them notable if they win the election, we delete the article and then recreate it at the end of the election cycle. Otherwise Misplaced Pages would become a free campaign platform to post a candidates campaign literature, and in the US there are some people who loose an election and essentially announce they are a candidate for the election the next time around immediately. So in some cases such a rule would make non-notable candidates perpetually able to have an article. This would actually probably apply to some candidates who were very far from ever winning anything, because some of these perpetual candidates are placeholders for one party or the other in races where there is no chance of them winning at all. There are various reasons these candidates exist, one is because of the US tendency to hold elections at multiple levels at once, and to have parties function at city, county, state and federal levels, this means even if your candidate for US House is not going to get over 35% of the vote, making sure there is someone running for US house in that district still may be key to mobilizing your party vote in that district in the state governors race, where the margin of victory is under 2%. It may also be kep to helping the candidate for state house in your party who will win on that other guys coattails in part of the district, even though your party candidate goes down to defeat in the whole race. Of course some people who on first brush look like perenial candidates, like Anderew "Rocky" Rackowski, who lost a closely contested US house race and a US senate race to the brother of the guy he lost to in the US house race, if you did deeper you realize at one point they were in the state legislature and so meet inclusion criteria, and you do not actually have to figure out if the congressional race coverage is enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Say what you will about perpetual candidates, but Calvin H. Gurley has achieved notability for his attempts. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment If I am reading things right, each of the 39 communities with an Advisory Neighborhood Comission, elects multiple commissioners. The ANC member is on a board that relates to the specific neighborhood (or cluster of neighborhods treated as one unit), they are not on a body that functions for the whole of the city. This is like a community council for any other sub-unit of a city, which at least if the sub-units are not offcial government bodies do not confer notability for membership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes there's around 300 commissioners serving on the ANCs. It's amusing that we would even consider that ANC membership confers notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

To be fair I think that is less than members of the New Hampshire House of representatives, but they are an actual legislative body. Although this also probably explains why we have articles on all the current about 107 members of the Michigan House of Representatives but if you look though New Hampshire House of Representatives, we probably only have articles on about a third. With all those redlinks I have to wonder if someone has gone through that article and made sure all the blue links are correct connections, I have found enough false positive links on much shorter film cast pages. There are 400 members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, so about one per 3,300 residents. Michigan it is basically 1 member of the state house per 90,000 residents. The Washington DC position works out to about one per 2,296 residents, but keep in mind they are not over the city as a whole, but just 1 of 39 divisions. Likewise the members of the Phoenix City Council may in general be notable (there are only 9, including the "mayor" who is the city-wide elected head of the city council, the city is run by a city manager), with a population of 1.6 million (to Washington's less than 700,000) but the members of the village councils are clearly not notable for such, and they I believe have more actual power than those in this position in DC (there are also way less such councils).John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete Neighborhood politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 20:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Iran-Guatemala relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No embassies, agreements, state visits. Article refers to a one off incident with the Iranian president. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
delete insufficient coverage to meet GNG. --99of9 (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete the lack of embassies, agreements and state visits means that this article has no chance of passing the notability guideline. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing really substantial or bilateral except Guatemala barring Iranian citizens from entry due to COVID in 2020 (like most countries) , the Iranian ambassador in Mexico showing up to Guatemala in August 2021 , and the Lev Tahor extremist religious group trying to leave Guatemala for Iran . Couldn't find official visits or the likes, but that's not surprising given Guatemala's pro-US geopolitical alignment and Iran's anti-US alignment. Maybe there were some relations between 1954 and 1979, when both countries were subject to coups which brought them together on the geopolitical alignment spectrum, but none of that seems have materialized today. Pilaz (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was Draftify.. There was strong near consensus to delete but I'm moving this page to Draft space for those who believe that better sources are imminent. Please do not move to main space until it has received AFC approval. Liz 07:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Paras Kalnawat

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one significant role and some small roles , failing WP:NACTOR Princepratap1234 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep: Though the notable role is only one that is Samar Shah in Anupamaa but still it'll be very soon to get his article deleted due to illogical fan activities by some sockpuppet users.Though ITV shows features dozens of actors. But he's one of the important character since starting of the show. And the main lead of 2017 series Meri Durga and main antagonist of 2019 web series Ishq Aaj Kal. Though his main notable role is Samar Shah right now. But see his career graph for once. Not asking as a fan. Generally. See the plot of Anupamaa first and his career graph also. Please.Pri2000 (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete: Lacks sufficient evidence that WP:NACTOR is met. Assessing notability from Indian TV shows is tricky because they feature dozens of actors over hundreds of episodes. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete requires multiple lead roles. There are many roles but they aren't essentially lead. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete I agree, it's not clear that this meets WP:NACTOR one major role, some minor roles, with no RS supporting. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep: The subject has wide media coverage in reliable sources like The Times of India, Zee news, prabhat khabar, Indian express etc. So it should be kept. Gari897 (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Wide media coverage" has been asserted; is that claim backed up by reliable sources? @Gari897: links to the sources you are referencing would help move this discussion along properly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

- - Sir I am talking about the refernces listed below: , , , , , , , , ] Gari897 (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of these sources do seem relevant; relisting again in the hope of getting reactions from other participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete I've looked through the links found above and all are either typical churnalism (republished tweet/instagram posts) content or interviews. hemantha (brief) 10:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I think deleting an article even after having sufficient presence in Reliable Resources just on the basis of Interviews or Churnalism will be a much sooner step. As most of the actors have their sources on similar basisPri2000 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources like interviews may be used to support article content but they don't contribute towards notability. The subject has to meet NACTOR or GNG independently. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Incubation Request/Suggestion - Kindly incubate the article and move it to Misplaced Pages:Drafts instead of deletion until it meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - no notable shows. Fails WP: NACTOR.223.236.209.202 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Just see his career graph for once within 2021 and Anupamaa is indeed his biggest notable show even after him being main lead in Meri Durga and main antagonist in Ishq Aaj Kal. And don't consider Anupamaa unnotable as Anupamaa itself is a highly populated show following all notability guidelines. And his role is in the show is among one of the most important roles. And see his presence in Reliable sources also. I agree with Manali Jain's suggestion also to draftify it.Pri2000 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

~~Pri2000 ,you are commenting so many times to influence the result. You don't need to mention same thing again and again.110.226.215.221 (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)~~

~~Pri2000, Please see WP:GNG and WP: NACTOR. He is clearly failing both guidelines.110.226.215.221 (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)~~

~~Pri2000 but you are repeating your statement again and again. You have voted once and commented twice.110.226.215.221 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)~~

The above IP is evading their block. The closer should disregard their comments. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete Too soon. Refer-WP:TOOSOON GeezGod (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Draftify - To me this topic appears possibly notable, but the article is in such poor English that it's difficult to tell. Deb (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one last time. It was suggested that the subject is "possibly notable".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)