Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 8: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:51, 8 February 2022 editCoffee (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,540 edits Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hertz Nazaire (XFDcloser)← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:55, 8 February 2022 edit undoCoffee (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,540 edits Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Tié (2nd nomination) (XFDcloser)Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->		<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Tié (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hertz Nazaire}}<!--Relisted-->		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hertz Nazaire}}<!--Relisted-->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012}}<!--Relisted-->		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 06:55, 8 February 2022

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday January 7 (Tue) January 6 (Mon) January 5 (Sun) 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 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 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. 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)

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 05:02, 15 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 14:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Geeta Vadhera

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

I can't find reliable sources on a Google search. When I tried to check some of the links that are peppered at the bottom of the article I get dead links and threat warnings. At the very least the link farm at the bottom should be removed immediately. Is it vandalism by an IP? Check the links at your own risk. I think the whole article should be deleted. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

References have been updated to reflect websites that have closed All links are active . I have checked each one and added new working links. Geeta Vadhera has had a long stellar career as an artist and has had multiple exhibitions much before the internet was invented. She is an awardee of the Bharat Nirman Award as well and reference to the same has been provided. Please attempt Google Search again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.139.128.252 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 02:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment gosh yes the article needs some work for sure - ~~currently undecided on notability~~ I did find an article in the Khaleej Times - https://www.khaleejtimes.com/article/straight-from-the-heart-4 Mujinga (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep - thanks to 150.242.172.148 and KH-1 for suggesting links, I've added them to the article and she passes GNG now. Mujinga (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment in 2010, @Modernist: added a section about modern Indian painting to History of painting with this edit, and added "Geeta Vadhera has had acclaim in translating complex, Indian spiritual themes onto canvas like Sufi thought, the Upanishads and the Bhagwad Geeta." No sources were provided, but perhaps we can ask where that came from? I can't find it. Vexations (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment* See also from The Straits Times, Singapore - Some of the exhibitions are pre internet era so this is article is on microfilm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.242.172.148 (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment, where are the wikinotable galleries/museums that hold her work or significant exhibitions that she has been involved with? at the moment it is a delete from me as not meeting WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 9 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 // 02:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment Uncited material removed. One embedded link remains that throws a security warning. No inline citations added to the article. Modernist never responded to ping. https://www.khaleejtimes.com/article/straight-from-the-heart-4 appears to be a press release with no byline. I cannot find evidence that this artist meets WP:NARTIST. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any !voters?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Four articles from The Straits Times covering her work in the 1980s: . Possibly enough coverage to meet WP:GNG?-KH-1 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment The Straits Times is not reliable and the articles are puff pieces. One of the "reviews" was for an art exhibit at a hotel. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

They're not puff pieces and The Straits Times is reliable. Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says "The Straits Times is the largest newspaper in Singapore. There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage". Cheers KH-1 for the sources! Mujinga (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep per discussion and sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep per sources above, the WP:GNG, and WP:ARTIST 4c. There is no case for deletion! gidonb (talk) 12:37, 8 March 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Howard Stableford

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable. Poor sources that do not demonstrate significant coverage about him JMHamo (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete. I tried really hard to find sources to verify the statements in this article, and felt ashamed that for one of the more noteworthy, I could find nothing better than a retrospective in the Mirror. His career does not appear to have attracted sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. I was intending to nominate it for deletion myself this month (February). Yngvadottir (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep I remember he used to be everywhere in the 80s/90s: some details at the BFI https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2ba1bb342b and Radio Times https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/search/0/20?q=%22Howard+Stableford%22#top Piecesofuk (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Nostalgia is not enough to prove notability. Per WP:GNG he needs significant coverage in reliable sources JMHamo (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
A week in the life of ... Howard Stableford: Howard Stableford was talking to Alice Wyllie.The Scotsman; Edinburgh (UK) . 16 Sep 2006

Typical Biker Name: Howard Stableford Rides: Harley-Davidson Road King Classic Interview by Olly Duke.The Daily Telegraph; London (UK) . 16 Dec 2000

a Dinner Date with Howard Stableford: Sunday Mercury; Birmingham (UK) . 07 Feb 1999:

My Hols;Travel;Interview;Howard Stableford, Hodson, Mark.Sunday Times; London (UK) . 14 Apr 1996

Howard Stableford 60 SECONDS EXTRA!: Howard Stableford presented Tomorrow's World for more than 12 years before giving it up to go and live in Colorado https://web.archive.org/web/20121005235636/http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/interviews/38-howard-stableford

First four are available on ProQuest Piecesofuk (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Piecesofuk: The Metro article is already in use, and someone has added a Stage article that may be good, but it's subscription-required and I can't see it. (I let my British Newspapers Archive sub lapse because it had been a hassle to get it, and the search was such shite I never found a single usable thing.) Those you cite above all appear to be interviews (and I can't see the 4 on Proquest, though there may be another way to get to some of them.) To establish notability, we need the Stage piece to be an article, not a brief blurb, and at least one additional extended piece about him, preferably not also from when he was first announced for Tomorrow's World. Since you have database access (and likely UK library access to newspaper archives online, unlike me), can you find us any? I also have doubts about the reliability of the BFI page for citing his birthdate; what's their sourcing policy, are we sure they haven't pulled that date from earlier versions of Misplaced Pages's own article or something equally unreliable? Do any of the interview articles I haven't seen mention how old he was at the time? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I added the Stage article, it states that he was 25 (in 1985). It mentions he presented Newsround and Beat The Teacher, and his early radio career. ProQuest is available via the Misplaced Pages Library https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/, the four mentioned above are the first four results of 211 when I search for "Howard Stableford". The Telegraph interview is available at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/4747872/Typical-biker-Howard-Stableford.html The Guardian reported his return in the live one-off https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/nov/03/bbc-to-reboot-tomorrows-world-for-one-off-live-special Daily Mirror states that he was one of Tomorrow's World's longest running presenters https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/tomorrows-world-returns-what-future-10350906 The Independent report that when Stabledord and Judith Hann were presenters that the show peaked with 10 million plus viewers https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tomorrow-s-world-confined-to-history-as-science-takes-a-battering-in-the-ratings-133503.html Piecesofuk (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Assuming the Stage article is more than a short paragraph, as I said, it appears to be a good source. But we require multiple reliable sources to have given him extended coverage, and interviews like the Telegraph are iffy for that, so so far it's the only one I see. I added the Mirror, and that can now be removed, since Stage refs the other shows that I couldn't find a reference for, and it's an unreliable source that we shouldn't be using in a BLP. As I say, I'm also uncertain about the reliability of BFI for his date of birth; I think we should be saying only "born in 1959 or 1960", with the Stage ref based on that statement that he was 25 in 1985. But the Mirror article is actually on the occasion of that one-off reunion broadcast of Tomorrow's World, and I really don't think that's worth mentioning as such in connection with his career, which is why I didn't use the Guardian, which says nothing about his other work. It and the Independent don't count toward notability at all, they only mention him briefly in connection with having done Tomorrow's World. To keep the article, we need at least one more article about him (that isn't just an interview about his love of biking; the Telegraph article adds Changing Places and that he married an American, but is otherwise just celebrity fluff, I'm afraid). Is there one (or more) lurking behind a paywall? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you're questioning the reliability of the British Film Institute reference. Is there any evidence that they're unreliable or pull their information from Misplaced Pages? They have his place of birth as Poynton, Cheshire which as far as I can tell was not in Misplaced Pages.

He was also President of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors from 1998 to 2007 https://web.archive.org/web/20130627092746/http://www.theipi.org.uk/History.aspx predecessors include Bob Symes, Rhys Lloyd, Baron Lloyd of Kilgerran, John Maitland (Conservative politician), Archibald Low and George Askwith, 1st Baron Askwith.

There's no evidence that the Daily Mirror is an unreliable source (no consensus according to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) and it provides evidence that Stableford was one of Tomorrow World's longest serving presenters. Piecesofuk (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added an additional reference for his date and place of birth, it can be viewed at https://archive.org/details/whoswhoontelevis0000hayw/page/234/mode/1up It was published in 1996 so predates Misplaced Pages Piecesofuk (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 01:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Piecesofuk. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:36, 13 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 // 02:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment Described in this article in the Daily Telegraph https://www.newspapers.com/image/752258794/ as "lead presenter of BBC TV's science and technology flagship programme Tomorrow's World" Piecesofuk (talk) 08:42, 18 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)

The result was delete. Spartaz 19:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

118 Reunion

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

Non notable show. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Weak keep: As a continuation of the successful series. However, recongising that there're limited coverage/reviews, instead of deletion, the article may be merged into 118 II instead. – robertsky (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Weak keep as a review has been added to enable a reception section but only one outlet so a weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment - There is only one reference, but I am not opposed to a merge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
will a redirect be amiable to you? – robertsky (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)