Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 10: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 20:57, 10 February 2022 editLiz (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators765,474 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Herndon (media psychologist).Tag: Twinkle ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:04, 10 February 2022 edit undoCoffee (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,540 edits Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of VFA/VFL wooden spoons (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/List of VFA/VFL wooden spoons}}<!--Relisted-->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Herndon (media psychologist)}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Herndon (media psychologist)}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chris Holt (boxer)}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chris Holt (boxer)}}

Revision as of 21:04, 10 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 09	February 11 >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

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

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

List of VFA/VFL wooden spoons

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

No evidence that this is a notable list topic (individual entries may have gotten a mention), i.e. that the VFA or VFL wooden spoon is a topic that on its own has gotten significant attention from reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep It seems to me that based on the results of this search the subject is clearly notable? Aoziwe (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why did you include AFL in that search? That seriously skews the results of course. This list is only about the VFA / VFL, not about the AFL as a whole. Fram (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Removed. (I copy edited the wrong version.) Aoziwe (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Fram (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably delete, although ideally I'd like to hear from Asperix first. Although the article lists a decent number of references, they all seem to merely mention that e.g. Aspley "claimed the wooden spoon" in 2021, without actually discussing the topic of VFA/VFL wooden spoons. The list therefore seems to fail WP:LISTN, and there doesn't seem to be another list purpose the page would fulfil. – Teratix ₵ 09:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:LISTN. As nom says, topic does not seem to get significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 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 // 21:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete As per nom. Minor league AFL content.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Nomination makes sense. Users can visit the pages of the template Template:VFA/VFL seasons below instead. Perhaps add a sentence to those pages about the wooden spoon to each page.

v t e VFA/VFL seasons
Pre-VFA	1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876
VFA seasons	1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896
VFA seasons (post-VFL formation)	1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
VFL seasons	1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Gusfriend (talk) 07:51, 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. ✗plicit 23:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

James Herndon (media psychologist)

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

First PROD'd in 2006 for failing to meet standards of notability and being promotional, I think this "contributing faculty member" (I'm not sure what that means) fails both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. In a search, I found other James Herndons more notable than him and even searches for "James N. Herndon" turned up more mentions for a dentist by this name than for this media psychologist. Liz 20:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Liz 20:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Liz 20:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Liz 20:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Liz 20:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:Prof and WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC).
Delete. I don't think I've ever been unable to find an academic's book before, let alone reviews for it. Neither of those depression books come up in WorldCat. I'm kind of impressed? -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment - If this article does somehow survive, it needs to be renamed to James Herndon (psychologist), for WP:CONCISION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xurizuri (talk • contribs) 03:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Chris Holt (boxer)

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

Non-notable boxer who fails WP:NBOX. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete not even close to remotely enough coverage to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete non-notable boxer. We don't have articles for every single regional state titleholder. -Imcdc (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete A Minnesota state championship isn't close to meeting WP:NBOX. My search found routine sports coverage, but nothing that shows he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Liz 05:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Poddar International College

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

I don't often send college articles to AfD but this seemed like a clear candidate. I was going to draftify but a near-identical version already sits there (created by the same user). I'm not seeing sufficient coverage for WP:NORG, in particular WP:ORGDEPTH is not met as the coverage that I can find is just listings in Outlook India or a mention in a Brand Connect post in Forbes India which also fails WP:ORGIND. Also note that Google Books had nothing of substance and I'm not convinced by my ProQuest search either. I did find this article but it reads more like an advert for the school rather than independent journalism! I might be wrong, though.

Draft:Poddar International College can stay but the mainspace article should be deleted unless clear NORG coverage can be demonstrated. Spiderone 20:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 15:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE. ManaliJain (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. There's reasonable arguments on both sides here. Some source material has been provided; it appears to be neither strong enough to render the "delete" arguments inconsequential, nor poor enough to obviate the "keep"s. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Józef Biss

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

While there is some coverage of this individual, this is almost all from a single source. This could be considered a case of WP:BIO1E, but does not meet GNG. Onel5969 13:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. First, the nominator for deletion blanked the article altogether with the edit summary redirect to only incident which he is notorious for, instead redirecting it to Al Columbia, who is patently not related to the article nor to Pawłokoma. I hope the nominator recognises that error.

Referring to the article itself, Biss played a central role in the Pawłokoma massacre, which itself is notable (but which article is a stub). Per WP:BLP1E, the article should be deleted if a person is known for one event, is otherwise WP:LOWPROFILE and his role in the event was minor or tangential. The thing is, the point 3 is not satisfied - he was central to the event.

The problem here is not that Biss only has one source that describes him but that there are few people who can read both Polish and Ukrainian, have access to the books and want to expand it. The sources are in fact rather plentiful , just no one bothered to use them yet. The article needs substantial work, but it clearly belongs here, at least for so long as the Pawłokoma article itself is not expanded. If it had been, we could have probably talked about merging, but given the dismal state of the Pawłokoma massacre article (which should be larger), the article should stay. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Szmendewrowiecki's sources list (The sources are in fact rather plentiful... ) is from… 1800s before Biss was even born and links to entirely different people. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources as they appear in the link and that contain something more than simply a mention of the name:

Stanisław Kryciński, Przemyśl i Pogórze Przemyskie (2007)
Wiesław Józef Wiąk, Struktura organizacyjna Armii Krajowej 1939-1944 (2003)
Grzegorz Rąkowski, Ziemia lwowska (2005) - cited in the article
Grzegorz Mazur, Konspiracja lwowska, 1939-1945: słownik biograficzny (1997)
Dariusz Iwaneczko, Zbigniew Nawrocki (eds.), Rok pierwszy: powstanie i działalność aparatu bezpieczeństwa publicznego na Rzeszowszczyźnie (2005)
Konspiracja i opór społeczny w Polsce 1944-1956: słownik biograficzny, vol. 1 and 3 (2002)
Bogdan Kobuszewski, Piotr Matusak, Tadeusz Rawski (eds.) Polski Ruch Oporu 1939-1945 (1988)

The list may go on, and I've only mentioned the Polish-language sources. Ukrainian-language sources have not even been considered in this list despite my writing in Ukrainian. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The link you posted does not show any of the above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

They start with this then this and so on. Anyone can check. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Google in Canada doesn't work the same way as it does in Poland, or even across users, which I've already seen elsewhere in discussions (Google should know better - Ukrainian Canadians are quite plentiful in Prairie provinces, and among these some speak Ukrainian; though again I can't rule out Google serving different content based on the province you live in). Besides, it's fairly strange that a query in Ukrainian returns you a false positive publication in Dutch (it finds repeated instances of "biss."). But anyway, you've got the titles above, you can search among these. They have each talk a paragraph or two about him, out of which we can make a small but a meaningful entry. As has been said, Ukrainian sources were not considered but that's because Google serves me Polish entries for Ukrainian queries. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Google in Canada doesn't work the same way as it does in Poland.. - no, the search results for this particular entry are exactly the same in Poland and in Canada. Exactly the same. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No - your search you show now (in the attached screen shot) is in books section (książki - in Polish), that’s why is different. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Plus "Przemysl i Pogórze Przemyskie: przewodnik

..przewodnika stanowi Słownik miejscowości zawierający szczegółowe informacje krajoznawcze o wszystkich miejscowościach na omawianym terenie, w tym także nieistniejących. English - the sightseeing guide is a locality dictionary containing detailed sightseeing information about all the villages in the area in question, including non-existent ones

The sightseeing guide is not a RS for this topic area. Stanisław Kryciński is not a historian (he is an engineer)- GizzyCatBella🍁 21:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You may note that the link at the top of the screenshot is exactly the same as the link I've offered at the very beginning. You may also want to see here for the values of tbm search parameter.

Now, you've cited one book which arguably isn't RS, but you've got six others. Anything about them? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What are you trying to reference? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

My point is not what we are trying to reference, but that the sources are there. People simply didn't bother to reach them. Since multiple independent and reliable sources talk about him (and I've only taken Polish-language books), it squarely meets WP:GNG. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No, there are not. Your source number 3 - Grzegorz Rąkowski, Ziemia lwowska (2005) is another tour guide.

But lets focus on your source number 2 for now - Wiesław Józef Wiąk, Struktura organizacyjna Armii Krajowej 1939-1944 (2003) - Is this source about Józef Biss? GizzyCatBella🍁 06:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment. It doesn't have to be about him, it needs to have WP:SIGCOV content about him. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Biss is notable not only for his genocidal killings of Ukrainian civilians, but also for his extensive banditry after the war. Or, as patriotic Poles call it, anti-communist activities via armed robbery. This was a notorious criminal, a mass murderer, who is discussed extensively in Polish and Ukranian sources.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC) - globally banned strike

User:Erin Vaxx please strike your ethnically based attack and insults. Volunteer Marek 17:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep. While we are crippled by the poor digitization of Polish sources, and the fact that what is digitized on Google Books is snippet view, I see the following:

: a footnote biography of at least several sentences length
and indeterminate length and style biography that also appears to be at least several sentences long

While this is not a lot, it meets my interpretation of the minimum needed for GNG (at least two independent, reliable sources, which contain WP:SIGCOV-passing content about the subject). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete or Merge to Pawłokoma massacre - lacking acceptable sources (refer to ArbCom restrictions ) See talk page for more - This source is the only one meeting sourcing expectations I believe - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella What do you think about the sources I found above? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the only one that’s good by Janusz Kurtyka . GizzyCatBella🍁 19:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
and this one about the massacre. That’s why I believe the merger is fine too. GizzyCatBella🍁 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll dissent. If someone gets two biographies in reliable books, short but still biographies, I think we can have a dedicated article about them. I think that's enough for WP:NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per discussion on my Talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Closing/relisting admin comment: Szmenderowiecki came to my Talk and we had a conversation about my close. While I stand by my merger close, more discussion is never a bad thing so I have relisted this for further input. Thanks all. Star Mississippi 20:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not optimistic that further input is forthcoming, but willing to give it another try for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisting admin comment @Szmenderowiecki and Piotrus: I'm not going to be the one to close this given I did the first time, but I don't think we're going to get any more input. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 03:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi Heh. Just leave it to another admin to close, what will happen will happen and it will be good to have another set of eyes... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
It's funny, @WexfordUK just asked at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mario_Cerrito_(2nd_nomination) whether it was the longest running AfD. I knew it had company but forgot about this one being a week longer. Curious to see how it closes. Star Mississippi 14:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I did! LOL. WexfordUK (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete or merge per arguments above. Volunteer Marek 09:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Running Away with the Circus

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

Non-notable, no potential for expansion. Ibadibam (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Totally fails GNG. I cannot find anything appropriate. Aoziwe (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Not close to meeting GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Matrax

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

Sources provided are all just minor music publicity. I couldn't find any sigcov from a google search. Subject doesn't seem notable to me. Ficaia (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Note AfD was never listed a daily AfD page, so I listed it on January 10, so it should not be closed until at January 17 TartarTorte 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 19:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 19:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment With the Juno nomination, I expected to find something about them. Tried limiting my search to .CA websites... I can't even verify what/when/if they were nominated for the award. Leaning non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - The article appears to be an attempted promotion. Like the previous commenter, I can find no direct verification of their supposed Juno award; I suspect that the award was won by a song they produced or wrote and not by themselves. They have a fair number of credits attached to other people's works, but it appears that they have not graduated from lists of credits to significant coverage on their own. They're active behind-the-scenes guys but alas, too many steps away from their own notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election

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

~~Case of WP:TOOSOON. Zero coverage by media, will be better to make a page after a year. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)~~. Nomination withdrawn per user:Goldsztajn. Can be closed as Keep. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep There is plenty of coverage; five minutes of searching reveals a plethora of sourcing in English (I've not looked in the Kannada language media). Furthermore, leaving aside its status as an essay, WP:TOOSOON does not operate as a blanket ban on articles on future events; NB WP:CHRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This format of "Next XXXX election" is standard in dealing with regular elections which have a unspecified cycle; given the 70+ year history of regular elections in the state, the available sourcing and the timeframe, these are safe, reasonable grounds for an article on an election due within 15 months.

References

"BJP begins spadework for 2023 Assembly elections in Karnataka". The New Indian Express. 21 January 2022.
"Interview with M.B. Patil: 'Congress will have region-specific strategies for 2023 Assembly elections in Karnataka'". The Hindu. 28 January 2022.
"Karnataka Congress diversifies its turf ahead of assembly polls". Hindustan Times. 3 February 2022.
Menasinakai, Sangamesh (17 January 2022). "BJP: Nk To Witness Political Churn Ahead Of '23 Polls?". The Times of India.
Aiyappa, Manu (14 January 2022). "Water Flows Into Parties' Agenda Ahead Of 2023 Polls | Bengaluru News - Times of India". The Times of India.
Menasinakai, Sangamesh (30 December 2021). "Karnataka: BJP sets mission of winning 150+ seats in 2023 assembly elections". The Times of India.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was merge to Liturgical books of the Presbyterian Church (USA). ✗plicit 23:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The Book of Common Worship of 1932

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

Unsourced article on topic covered by the more expansive article Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge with redirect into Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Gusfriend (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge No rs here to establish notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 21:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sydney Smith (photographer)

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

This seems to be a purely local artist, of local interest. BD2412 T 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nom. I get only a few hits in Gnewspapers, one in French about a "new yorker" in 1940 which I don't think is this fellow and one book in GBooks, appears to have been published by the museum or archive holding his photos. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep This is a local artist, but his name is listed in The Australian Dictionary of Biography https://adb.anu.edu.au/about-us/ and his works are held in museum collection

There are Sydney Smiths in the Australian Dictionary, but they are not this photographer.Chemical Engineer (talk)

No strong opinion He has been compared with Francis Meadow Sutcliffe in terms of depicting early rural life, so I started the article in case others could fill in more, which has not happened yet. TheNational Science and Media Museum may have more. Chemical Engineer (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Note, I have found one substantial source from which to expand the article. I'm still on the fence about it. BD2412 T 22:27, 12 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 // 18:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment I've also tried a Getty ULAN search, nothing. If substantive sources can be found/added to the article, willing to reconsider. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete, this appears to be a non-notable Sydney Smith; there are some notable people of the same name (dab page), causing confounding signals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep The York Press article is an independent and sufficiently extensive article about him. The book listed as cites 1 & 2 here has around 80 of his photographs, which as a photographer is a comprehensive use of his work. Because he was a photographer, presentation of his photographic work should count. The collection of his works is held at the Beck Isle Museum, as it says in the WP article there. Lamona (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete While they may not be completely authoritative, the notability criteria at WPPhotography show that the subject, with the sources presented, is not notable. Neither of the books cited seems to be dedicated solely/mainly to his work or has "received critical attention" and he does not appear in any of the databases listed. It could be debated whether the Beck Isle Museum is "prominent", and they do have a large collection of his work , but it still seems as if he only had local significance/coverage. If someone is able to visit the museum mentioned here and gather more information, I would certainly be willing to reconsider, but for the time being there seems to be only one (local) source to count towards notability. Toadspike (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Index of Myanmar-related articles

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Index of Myanmar-related articles (2nd nomination)

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

This type of list can be considered depecrated, per this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD. The index in question is a huge block of text unusable to a human reader. Would have prodded, but the AFD route was tried already in 2007. Geschichte (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete all per my comments in the previous AFDs. Reywas92 17:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Move to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Myanmar/Index of Myanmar-related articles. I can see the potential utility of such a list, but not as a mainspace article. If not moved, delete. BD2412 T 18:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
BD2412, what potential utility do you see here? – Uanfala (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
It's an easy page from which to click "related changes" and see changes to pages relevant to the project, without having to individually watchlist them. BD2412 T 00:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that. I think that's one of the main reasons some of those lists got created in the early days of Misplaced Pages, when watchlists and categories didn't exist yet (see Olivier's comment in this AfD). If someone wanted to use such a functionality now, then – given how incomplete the list is – they'll be much better off just generating a new index from the project listing . – Uanfala (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per previous discussions. With almost exactly a thousand links, this represents just 13% of the articles tracked by the Myanmar Wikiproject. I can't see what value it may provide for either readers or editors. – Uanfala (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. I don't understand what benefit Misplaced Pages users get out of this list. We already have a much better organizational system consisting of the categories and subcategories within Category:Myanmar. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Never ending poorly organized list. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists. Ajf773 (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists as is being currently done with the others. -Imcdc (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete The page should be deleted. The page might be a useful tool for someone with the mass category edit tool to add Category:Myanmar to appropriate pages.Gusfriend (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Index of Albania-related articles

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

This type of list can be considered depecrated, per this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD. The Albania index in question here is underdeveloped and useless. Would have prodded, but that route was tried already in 2010. Geschichte (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete all per my comments in the previous AFDs. Reywas92 17:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Move to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albania/Index of Albania-related articles. I can see the potential utility of such a list, but not as a mainspace article. If not moved, delete. BD2412 T 18:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. I don't understand what benefit Misplaced Pages users get out of this list. We already have a much better organizational system consisting of the categories and subcategories within Category:Albania. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists as is being currently done with the others. -Imcdc (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete The page should be deleted. The page might be a useful tool for someone with the mass category edit tool to add Category:Albania to appropriate pages.Gusfriend (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete this isn't at all useful and there's clearly a consensus to delete lists of this type. So I can't think of a good reason to keep it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was merge to Theresienstadt Ghetto. Spartaz 16:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The Given Town

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

Insufficient sourcing both here and at cswiki. Did a BEFORE search that didn't turn up anything useful, though I don't speak Czech so I'm not comfortable PRODing it. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge to Theresienstadt. I assume good faith in translation and thus that the conclusion is correct that the footage is part of a Nazi propaganda film. If so, the footage is notable, but does not need a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep or Merge. I added two English language sources after this was nominated so everything there is now verifiable. There is a suggestion of notability for the documentary film juxtaposition of found propaganda footage with drawings from concentration camp artists independent of the propaganda film itself. However, these sources alone are not the most extensive coverage though there is almost certainly more in Czech, as the mention of a contemporaneous newspaper interview and coverage attests. If merged, an argument could be made for either Terezín_concentration_camp#Legacy or Theresienstadt_(film)#Historiography with my preference for the former. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:18, 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 // 18:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Halo Technology Holdings

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

They do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Daringsmith (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Article is a one-sentence stub with zero sourcing as to why this company is notable.TH1980 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. -Imcdc (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Unable to find sources that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing 21:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete might be notable due to being public, but since no sources provided and above editors unable to find anything, then I vote delete. Chelokabob (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Unbh (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete not a single source provided, I can find a few press releases and reports from data aggregators, but nothing independent or in-depth. Anton.bersh (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

NexGen Storage

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

They do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the references are paid press releases. Daringsmith (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete or merge: this sounded familiar. Indeed, back in 2016 I proposed merging this into Fusion-io but the merge expired a couple years later after I got re-employed briefly. There already is a brief mention of NexGen in that article. If I have some time today I can try to mention it in the SanDisk article too, since it is not clear where it should go. Probably not enough sources to make the case for a separate article. W Nowicki (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete seeing as how there is already a mention in the Fusion-io article, references fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 15:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Liz 06:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

I would like to ask if this page could be reinstated, please, in order to remove any promotional language and provide published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Thanks so much for this consideration!

Katherine ByeByeNYC (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

GridGain Systems

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

They do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Page is clearly created for promotion. Page creator's edits on Misplaced Pages promote this company. Daringsmith (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete or merge. I tried to work on this in 2016, but it appears single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Tdieds1945 added some more promotion, and spun off an entirely new Apache Ignite article on the technology. Then various editors removed more of the promotion, resulting in, well not much. Certainly not enough to justify two articles, so I would say remove this one or redirect it to Apache Ignite. W Nowicki (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any merge targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete. It definitely doesn't meet WP:NCORP, as there are very few articles that are reliable and independent. I don't think that there are any good articles that it can be merged/redirected to. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone 19:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

In the Shadows (2001 film)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and one review (needs two or more reviews/RS to be eligible) on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Reviews at DVD Talk and TV Guide , both are WP:RS DonaldD23 talk to me 16:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep per the two reviews. Rotten Tomatoes seems to be extremely bad at listing reviews. Geschichte (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. I withdraw this nomination per WP:NEXIST and per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Association for Intelligent Information Management

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

There has been significant conversation as to this association's notability on the article talk for years, but consensus was never clear. Especially with changing notability guidelines since this article was created, it's time for a conversation. While i can find them mentioned in articles "according to..." and their research is occasionally cited, it isn't cited frequently enough to meet any guidelines there, and sourcing is well short of CORPDEPTH significance to meet the GNG. It exists and serves an industry, but doesn't appear to be independently notable. Star Mississippi 15:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete Neither the article nor my own search showed the significant independent coverage I believe is required for WP notability. Passing mentions, corporate listings, and databases are not sufficient. Papaursa (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Harold H. Buls

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Low to no citations on his academic work, and no independent coverage found. I'm sure he was a fine professor, but he's just not notable. schetm (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like he and his notes on various Bible verses are reasonably well-known among Lutheran ministers, but until one of them writes a biography on him or collects those notes into an edited volume, it doesn't look like there are any sources for us to use to say that. -- asilvering (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete He would have to pass through WP:GNG as he fails all WP:NACADEMIC criteria considerably. That being said he does not pass WP:GNC with the article in its current form. --Paulstar57 (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

El Yinker

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Misplaced Pages articles just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test requires them to pass one or more achievement-based criteria, and to have media coverage independent of their own self-published marketing bumf. But the referencing here is almost entirely of the "music metaverifying its own existence on Spotify, Apple Music, CD Baby or YouTube" variety, except for one citation to a WordPress blog, with not even one reference to a real, reliable or notability-building media outlet shown at all. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, to be charitable. A newcomer musician who is present on the usual social media and streaming sites, plus a few minor collaborations, but not yet noticed by the reliable music media in his own right. Also note the amateurish presentation of this article, with a gender change in the middle and the use of both "El Yinker" and "The Yinker", which is likely the result of self or management copying text from unreliable promo sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The Man & The Angel

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

Not notable, no sources available apart from the announcement already given in the article. Note that the other two sources in the article don't mention this film. Fram (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete, I don't see how this short is even remotely notable.--Mvqr (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - Not seeing evidence of notability, reads slightly promotional as well. ASUKITE 15:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Barring there being more sourcing that isn't in the article or I couldn't find, this looks to be a non-notable short film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Bad grammar, not notable, the bare plot synopsis sounds more like a teaser. User:ArdynOfTheAncients, 8:28, 10 February 2022
The film is directed by famous directed rupesh paul and the article has enough news sources it would be keep in te article section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiabirras (talk • contribs) 16:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete: Nowhere close to meeting WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be a low budget film, with a plotline that could be from a porno flick. Poorly written content. It's WPSNOWing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Emmanuel G. Cefai

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

BLP with only links to his own publications. Described as "promising". Rathfelder (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete articles are supposed to be built on 3rd-party sources, not on sources produced by the person about themself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Power Sword

AfDs for this article:

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

No coverage of the Power Sword independent of He-Man or the Masters of the Universe. Certainly not enough coverage to have it's own article. Delete and redirect, as this is already covered in He-Man and Masters of the Universe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Leaning keep. It's worth noting that there is an unexplored commercial angle, as there are numerous versions of the item that can be bought, ranging from cheap plastic children's toys to efforts to make a realistic metal sword. BD2412 T 18:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep This both a fictional item and a toy. Both their histories and some of their impact are described based, at least in part, on secondary sources. There may be a little too much plot-information, but we do have a full article here. So under which critereon is there "Certainly not enough coverage to have it's own article"? In addition to the commercial angle pointed out by BD2412, there's also a psychological angle as appears in this academic paper and this PhD thesis, though I cannot see how extensive that is, seeing only previews. This also has a bit more to say on the sword. Daranios (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Here is a a regularly-published book on the franchise with extensive discussion of the item. BD2412 T 20:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Daranios Uh, I downloaded the paper (through LibGen) and I don't think it even mentions "power sword". The very word sword appears in it three times, the best I see is a single sentence where the "ever-present sword" is listed in passing as one of the "phallic" elements of the show. Likewise, the mention in the PhD thesis is passing, the sword was one of several toys used in some experiment and is not discussed or even introduced. The third paper has a sentence that states (in the context of He-Man never hurting living creatures) that "Throughout all 130 episodes of the original cartoon, He-Man’s The Power Sword was only used for blocking other weapons, blocking laser blasts, and removing obstacles and he never even punched anyone (robots don’t count)". That's it. Now, the book. Page 31 offers a short plot summary: "Another element brought about early on was the Power Sword, though it would evolve over the next two years, as well. It was introduced as a “key” to Castle Grayskull, needed to open the great drawbridge of the skull’s mouth and access the great powers inside. To protect the castle, the Goddess split the Power Sword in two and scattered those pieces across Eternia. Only when they were united could someone gain entrance and become a master of the universal power kept within." and bit about the relevant toy "The multiple versions of the Power Sword are easily explainable by the realities of these first action figures: the swords that most characters were packaged with all looked like that. The tiny swords were made to fit together like in the stories. The thinness of each one’s plastic led them to curve from heat and regular play." There are a few mentions throughout the rest of the text but in the context of passing and trivial plot summaries (ex. p. 61 " The two battle it out, the Power Sword countering every spell the villain summons.", p. 63 "Atop Castle Grayskull, He- Man raises the Power Sword and says...", or p. 163 "He-Man dives after his father, and the two manage to stop their decent by jamming the Power Sword into the rock wall."). Page 94 in the context of this live action adaptation, I think, informs us that "The Power Sword prop was large and unwieldy, nicknamed “The Buick Slayer”" and there are a few sentences about how he actor trained with the mock up broadsword. Page 152 tells us, in the context of some new Mattel-related He-Man, that "The Power Sword went through a redesign to include a green laser blade.". That's it, I checked each and every one of the 90+ mentions of the word sword in this book (I love Z-library...). I am afraid this is very much not enough if these are the best sources we can find (given nobody else has anything, and the article still has zero reception/significance). If someone cares, maybe something from the sources I analyzed above could be merged somewhere, but just as I concluded in the last AfD, this toy is simply not notable enough for a stand-alone article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: For Toying with Identity, and Children an Agressive Toys, that my be it, I can only see the previews. What was the result of the experiment in the latter? The preview of Masters of the Universe: Children's Toys as Reflections on Contemporary Psychoanalytic Theory contains "...conferred upon Prince Adam the capacity to become transformed into He-Man. All he must do is lift his sword high in the air and shout, “By the power of Greyskull.” Prince Adam, now the mighty He-Man...". So it talks about our sword here, even if it does not use the name. An identification of it as a phallic element may be good only for one sentence of analysis, but there it is. We have two sentences about how popular the toy was, a reception of sorts. And if we look at everything currently based on secondary sources in the article, we have several paragraphs of material, including plot-summary, but also history of the toy and publication history of the fictional item. So taking everything together, like for Jclemens, that's enough for me, even if it does not amount to a stellar article. Daranios (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't cobble the appearance of WP:SIGCOV from two or three mentions in passing... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Well, if the argument is amount of coverage: We have an article of several paragraphs, and this would remain the case even if we cut out the unreferenced (i.e. based on primary sources) parts. That's what WP:WHYN requires in that regard. Daranios (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the fact that SIGCOV is failed here. If you disagree, please show me which source cited contains more than one-two sentences of analysis (not just plot summary) of this object. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

How He-Man Mastered the Universe supports about six sentences beyond plot-summary in the current version of the article. These are a bit of thought behind the sword, but mostly the toy's history. Everything else currently there is shorter. But, as usual, WP:GNG does not say that significant coverage needs to be done with any one specific source. In my opinion, it just has to exist in total. Daranios (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the above coverage. The nom's argument to "delete and redirect" is unsupported by policy and arguably would be prohibited by WP:ATD as unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep: The existing sources are enough to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect. Please see my analysis above for why the sourcing is very much not sufficient. Ping User:Jclemens ("per the above coverage") and User:Toughpigs ("existing sources") who think otherwise. Did any of you actually look at these sources at all? Or are you referring to some other sources, and if so, please tell us what they are. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I hadn't, but I see your source analysis and find that's still enough to be non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Sure, more would be nice, but again, we're dealing with a pre-Internet TV show here. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep if it’s had sufficient cultural impact to have a toy line it’s had sufficient cultural impact to have a Misplaced Pages article. Artw (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment Toy lines don't have any bearing on notability if sources haven't troubled to take note of the topic in question, and the sourcing here is very limited. At most there is the coverage of the toy line itself which Daranios mentioned, but that doesn't seem substantive or sustained enough, and, if Piotr's analysis is right (it's the only detailed one as of yet), any real-world coverage this fictional sword has appears to be limited to trivial mentions. A sum of failures of SIGCOV do not make one success of it, so I guess I would support redirecting for now, however unlikely this will happen at this stage. Avilich (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge to He-Man and/or other related articles. Yes, there is coverage, but it is mostly not about the sword as such (as a fictional item or as a toy), but about the He-Man character, his series and the merchandising for it, of which the sword is but one element. An item with the cultural prominence of Excalibur this is certainly not. It should be covered, per WP:DUE, in the context of the show and its characters. Sandstein 10:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment Has the Sword of Protection actually been included in the WP:BEFORE search? It gives a number of hits. Now I assume that many of them are plot summary, but it would be the duty of the nominator to check that. At the least this paper discusses the symbolism of the sword, especially of its destruction at one point. Daranios (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
That's just more sourcing that doesn't discuss a sword independently of the character. The symbolism of that sword to She-Ra belongs in She-Ra's article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: I can partially agree, it's possible to use that to discuss the sword as such and it's symbolism, or to discuss it at She-Ra. However, why are we then discussing deletion here rather than split, merge and redirect? I would be fine with that as an alternative to keeping the article, if relevant information that is not yet in the three target articles were to be preserved, and if the merge would come before the redirect. I don't see simply removing what has been gathered here either by deletion or redirection in the hope that someone will re-research it elsewhere or merge it later as a good way to go. As I am not exactly in the position to set conditions, I'll stay with my keep opinion (and I still see a stand-alone article as an effective solution), because alternatives could be solved in a clean-up afterwards at any time. Daranios (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Liz 05:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Vaa Deal

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

Unfinished film since 2012 whose failure is not notable per WP:NFF guidelines. Coverage is mostly announcements, press releases, and non-RS sites. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

delete the nominators points are valid, the article has little outside of music and cast, and all sources are from 2012 and are not truely related to the movie, more being leaks and general info about creation Im really bad at this (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the content added since the previous comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete There are some quality sources but not enough. Also, we can't save a page for an unfinished film for 10 years. I agree with the nominator.--Art&football (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete: 10 years ago? Not meeting WP:NFF, at best, this should be a blurb on the producer or director's page, but not an article Ravensfire (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Two relists with zero additional input, and I don't anticipate a third changing that. No prejudice against a renom at a time where you believe there might be more engagement Star Mississippi 02:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Titi Kuti

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NACTOR. Hasn't had any significant roles in notable films or television series. Is reliant on primary sources and unreliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 04:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 04:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Strong Delete — NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple movies or TV series, The actor is predominantly known for their “bit part roles” in both the movie titled “King of Boys” (the movie), and King of Boys (the TV series), of which in both movie and TV series they weren’t the lead role, they weren’t supporting actor, their roles are honestly best described as “bit part” . Furthermore they haven’t been given any prestigious awards for their acting, i am indeed doubtful they have ever received and prestigious award. I’d like to see the input of the article creator who removed the prod on the article, citing that NACTOR is met, I’d love to hear their rationale as how this is so. Celestina007 (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey, no need to bite or sound so angry. Now, I'm not the author of the article or the one who removed the prod, but glancing at the article and a few of its sources, I can see an argument that WP:GNG may have been met, as surprisingly, there are multiple articles listed expressly about this person in the role you labeled as a bit part. Even if WP:NACTOR is not met, WP:GNG would trump. The question I have though, is whether the sources are RELIABLE sources. I have no idea about the reliability or relevance of any of these sources. Could you (or someone) assess that? Fieari (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Fieari, could you please retract your aspersions? I consider aspersions a personal attack, you accused me of BITING when I have been nothing but civil with the editor who created this article, please which part of what I just said above is “Biting” ? I made factual statements which are all corroborated easily. In-fact look at our civil conversation I am very much offended by your aspersions against me, furthermore you stated that I “sounded angry”, which i found strange as “tone” can’t be interpreted over text, i was literally relaxed & laying on my sofa without an iota of anger or frustration when making those comments. I’m offended by this aspersions because I put in very conscious efforts to be polite and simultaneously precise/concise when interacting with my co-editors, Please can you be so gracious as to retract your aspersions or in the very least apologize, for assuming wrongly? Celestina007 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking this to your talk page to not clutter here. Fieari (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Strong Keep — NACTOR also requires significant roles in multiple TV series or other productions. The actor is also a producer. According to "NACTOR", he must have had significant roles in multiple productions, which includes, his production for Africa Magic, reality show "Nigerian Idol", and Africa Magic television series "Hustle", starring Sola Sobowale. A reliable source from Vanguard Nigeria, confirms the statement above. I believe with this, NACTOR is met.--Afí-afeti (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment — This is to note that the editor above is the article creator. They produced this Vanguard source which is unreliable as the byline is missing “the staff reporter” which invariably means we are dealing with an opinion piece which we do not consider reliable. Generally, when dealing with articles on business people, organizations or entertainers or any topic area which may be prone to less than ethical practices, we want to see reliable sources being optimized. Can this reliable sources be brought here for thorough analysis? In the very least at least three good sources that satisfy WP:RS & are in accordance with WP:GNG I’m afraid, If not, it is my opinion that this is a NACTOR fail. Celestina007 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep with no prejudice toward the nom as this is a very close call. He appears to have a regular role on a notable show but the debate above is about NACTOR and needing multiple notable roles by that guideline, with the rebuttal that he's been a producer in other things. So I'm left with looking at the broader general notability guidelines and there I find that this article's subject has himself been the non-trivial subject of multiple (in this case exactly 2) reliable secondary sources, the Guardian and Vanguard. So he only barely passes general notability, but a D is indeed a passing grade. -Markeer 23:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment — Markeer, Hello MKR, as stated on my TP that I wouldn’t comment here except expressly pinged, I’ve been deeply troubled since I made that statement(I would expatiate on this below) the apple of discord here is for any editor to bring forward sources, please can you be so kind as to show me the sources you found, the truth is, In as much as I try to ignore this AFD or comment any further, I have this huge feeling of guilt that an article that falls short of both NACTOR & GNG would be retained on mainspace due to honest mistakes on the part of editors unfamiliar with Nigerian sources(I am an expert on this) I am troubled because as a Nigerian(well I’ve lived here for 20+ years now) & I know as a matter of fact that the subject we are currently discussing doesn’t satisfy both NACTOR and GNG, MKR, I would be extremely grateful if you can show me the sources you found so I can do a source analysis. This isn’t an attempt to make you change your !vote, no, rather it is an attempt for me to do a source analysis on the sources you found and if you stick with your !vote that is indeed your prerogative and I would speak no more, all I’m begging for at the moment is a chance to do a analysis for you on sources you said you saw and as aforementioned if you stick to your !vote, in the spirit of consensus I would bow out, all I’m asking for from you or any editor to bring all the sources that substantiate their notability & as aforementioned, a chance to do a source analysis for everyone to see, I would draw up a source analysis table and assess each source presented. Celestina007 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Celestina007, I published the article on mainspace, you moved it to draft in quote, you stated "Not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources." I obliged to that, by making sure it was rewritten, please note: The interviews questions, are independent of the subject, to help establish notability. Without the series of questions, no media house in Nigeria or the world can successfully write an article independent of the subject, without the help of these interviews, which are been published by reliable sources. Also, I will love to bring to your attention, the article was submitted through AfC for review as requested by you. As Markeer stated above, I'm also bringing to your attention, the AfD was nominated for failing the requirements of "WP:NACTOR", this is the debate. It all said, it clearly meets this. In WP:Interviews, it states "it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts", this was what I did in the article. Remember the article is a "Stub". WP:Interviews are accepted for WP:GNG, if only it been published by a reliable source.--Afí-afeti (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@“Afí-afeti, First of all this comment by you: “The interviews questions, are independent of the subject, to help establish notability. Without the series of questions, no media house in Nigeria or the world can successfully write an article independent of the subject” is not supported by any policy here, and generally isn’t a factual statement, investigative journalism would be in variance with that wrong assertion. Let’s keep that aside, & focus on policy; GNG requires independence from the subject & Interviews are not independent of the subject thus they do not meet GNG, they can be used to verify certain trivial facts just as how WP:VENDOR's work, but it can’t be used to substantiate major notability claims, and this is also stated in Misplaced Pages:Interviews, please see this information. Lastly, I didn’t state "Not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources." that is auto generated message, although my draftification generated it. As I said in my TP and here also, I do not want to bludgeon, and would only return if I was pinged to do a source analysis, i was pinged & I have done a source analysis. The rest is left for the community to decide, my work here is done. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Source Check Request - @Celestina007: I don't think there's any need to bow out of commenting on this AfD... we're all here to build an encyclopedia, I think we're all okay now, and I believe your insight would be valuable. I see on your user page that Nigerian sources can be... complicated... with regards to reliability. Could I formally ask you to review the other sources on this page in this light? Specifically:
- PM News Nigeria - If (and only if) this is a reliable source, this is a strong indicator of WP:GNG as it is an article expressly about the actor in question in far more than a passing mention. It also has a byline, unlike the vanguard source you checked above.
- The Guardian - This is a similar kind of article as the PM News one, expressly about the subject in detail. It has a byline.
- Daily Trust (archived) - Another interview article with a byline as above.
- Bella Naija - I think I can already see just by looking at it that this isn't a reliable source.

I'm not claiming that I think these are reliable sources, I'm asking... are they? How can we tell? Thank you. Fieari (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Fieari, great. you have cited 4 sources and I’d analyze them accordingly, let me start by referencing the first source briefly before we delve into the crux of analysis, now, contrary to what you think, it is indeed a reliable source but that piece is unreliable, let’s begin the analysis, first source is credible but an unreliable piece, because it is literally based on an interview on a different platform, a portion of that piece reads Speaking with Ebuka Obi-Uchendu in a recent interview, the piece literally relied on an interview, and interviews aren’t independent of the subject thus doesn’t count towards notability the second source is is at best now a WP:QS, see one of the reasons here and even worse still, it is an interview thus doesn’t count towards notability as it isn’t independent of the subject which is required by WP:GNG. the third archived source is an interview thus can’t count towards notability as it isn’t independent of the subject. GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and that piece falls short of the standard requirement. As for the fourth and final source, you are apt. it is a gossip blog which is pretty much self published, lacks editorial oversight and has no reputation for fact checking, a huge fail of RS. Celestina007 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Are interviews really excluded from establishing notability? There's editorial control over who they interview, after all. The selection of questions, the editing, and the context they provide all seem like things that could establish notability. Fieari (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Fieari, GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of a subject, an interview is not independent of the subject thus is in variance with a core aspect of what constitutes notability as detailed in WP:GNG which requires absolute "independence" Do you get the drift? An interview is not independent in the sense that the editorial is publishing a literal interaction with the subject. Having said, let me expressly state that interviews are not without use, You see, Interviews are treated in the same manner we treat primary sources, that is, they can be used to verify information that is relatively trivial such as age, full name, college attended and things along those lines, they however do not count towards notability but only serve predominantly to satisfy WP:V When it comes to claims of notability we discard primary sources and employ or make use use of WP:IS. Furthermore to comprehend what I’m saying better look at Misplaced Pages:Interviews. Like I stated, elsewhere I wouldn’t bludgeon the the AFD process, and except I was pinged to do a source analysis I wouldn’t comment anymore. I believe I have just done so, thus my work here is done. I did this analysis not to make you change your mind nor that of anyone else but to show everyone that the sources are very unreliable in this context. If you need me to expatiate please ping me. On a lighter note, Did you ask how I can tell reliable sources from unreliable sources? Barkeep49 was my tutor at NPP academy, I learnt from the best

Celestina007 (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Fieari, looking at Celestina007's link to Misplaced Pages:Interviews, you'll see it's got an interesting section on Notability. Basically it comes down to this: you need to decide whether the interviewee sought out the interviewer, or vice versa. If the interviewee managed to wangle themselves a TV interview, it means nothing (except they've got a big wallet or a good agent). If the TV station independently, and without encouragement from the subject, decided the interviewee was worth interviewing, this supports their notability. But even so, the interview is a poor source for actual information, so unless there's some other source available, we find ourselves suspecting that someone's notable, but having nothing reliable we can say about them. I'm grateful for input from those who, like @Celestina, know the local sources and their attitudes to paid-for interviews. Don't get me started on paid-for award-nominations! Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete excluding interviews and churnalism, which don't count for notability, there is not enough independent coverage to write an article. (t · c) buidhe 19:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 01:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Justice Ofori

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

While accomplished, not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Contested prod (see article's talk page). But presidential appointees don't satisfy WP:NPOL, which clearly say they must be elected. Not a cabinet level position (see Cabinet of Nana Akufo-Addo). Onel5969 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:NPOL says that politicians must be elected to qualify. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep Justice Ofori is the Commissioner of Insurance in Ghana a very high profile Government of Ghana position which the person is nominated directly by the president to that office. This person meets WP:NPOL since his office is tied to the tenure of the president of the republic of Ghana. This makes the subject meet WP:GNG, I am at a loss why you claim he is not notable with the abundance of third party sources we have provided. The organization he heads is a very reputable Government of Ghana agency which regulates Insurance in Ghana. I shudder to think a head of such institution which is a constitutional body can not be said to meet WP:NPOL. Owula kpakpo (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment Many, many hits in Google, not sure which ones are considered reliable sources for Ghana. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. We're done feeding socks. As with the other articles impacted by their nonsense, I'm not draftifying this. However if @Necrothesp: or another established editor wants to work on this, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 01:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Raghunath Behura

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

To a degree a test case, but subject and content does not seem to pass the bar for an article under WP:GNG with most RS about the death event which was apparently a non-notable car accident. There is a question if either the President's Police Medal for long service, which while honourable, is ranked below the gallantry version, or if Additional director general of police is sufficient reason to satisfy WP:ANYBIO, bearinig in mind statesin India are often larger and more populous than many countries. A WP:NPP has tagged the article for notability but the article author has improved the article and they seem convinced nootability is now satisfied. My BEFORE noted the personal obituary but WP:ANYBIO does not seemed satsfied. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

KEEP he Intelligence Bureau, RAW, NSG and State Intelligence are top Law enforcement agencies of India. The subject person was the ADG of the Intelligence Bureau at the time of his death. He had 5 more years of service, in which any IPS officer gets DG rank. If the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG of a dead police officer (2nd highest rank), then I wonder what else might be eligible. It should be KEEP. :) --NeverTry4Me - TT page 23:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep ADG of the IB seems notable enough, rank is similar to the Deputy Director of the FBI. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Draftify I think that notability is there once there is more information about what they did in various roles and what they were involved with.Gusfriend (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete This does not meet notability guidlines. Starship SN20 talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG, and not sure of what SNG CapnJackSP is thinking about in their keep !vote, but unaware of any SNGs which say the deputy director a state agency is automatically notable. Onel5969 19:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

As per "the deputy director a state agency", I shall make it clear that, Intelligence Bureau is not a state agency, nor the subject person was deputy director. The subject person was Additional director general of police(2nd highest rank) of Intelligence Bureau, who died on duty, before his retirement. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 19:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Held what was essentially the highest rank in the Indian Police Service (the highest rank, not the head of, for the pedants - there is a difference!) and was deputy director of the Intelligence Bureau, India's national security and counter-intelligence agency. Clearly notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. Also passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Run-of-the-mill case! GeezGod (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Star Mississippi 03:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi Protected to stop the sock disruption and allow this to come to a conclusion. If this gets relisted by a non-admin, feel free to ping me to extend the protection. Star Mississippi 18:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete: No, the subject does not meet the GNG (the vast amount of the coverage being around his death in an auto accident, a ONEEVENT); no, there is no notability criterion covering subordinate provincial police officials; and no, COMMONSENSE isn't a trump card that substitutes for an utter lack of any notability criteria upon which to hang one's barracks cover. At AfD, we rule on the notability criteria that actually exist, not the ones individual editors wish did. Article created by now-indeffed NeverTry4Me. Ravenswing 00:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete No indication of notability under the GNG; what sources are available that are significant are not independent or not reliable and vice-versa No indication of notability under any applicable SNG; appointed civil servants are not notable simply by virtue of their position exept in limited cases that do not apply here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 15:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ravindra Svarupa Dasa

AfDs for this article:

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

All ISKCON preachers are not notable. There is no major work or post held. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Sources are dependent and connected with ISKCON. Gita Nagari Press is owned by ISKCON. In last AfD, ISKCON published books were used by one participant to vote keep. (This is similar to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Krishna Dharma) Venkat TL (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Lots of non-ISKCON sources on Google Books and Scholar (and even more when you use the "Das" spelling). Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:LOTSOFGOOGLEHITS Venkat TL (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

That policy refers to the main search engine. I'm talking about Google Scholar and Books. I don't see how you can say all the sources are dependent on or connected to ISKCON. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

P.K. Sukumaran

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

I can't find any evidence of notability, and the second source in the article doesn't seem to mention him, which is a bit alarming. Perhaps others have more luck in finding good sources for doctor Sukumaran, all I could find were sources for a namesake who leads a workers union. Fram (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Like the nom, I can only find coverage for a namesake. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP - eeeh... this page is not properly written and citated, but there are SIGCOV by The Hindu and Goocle Books search. We are here to improve wiki articles, not to bump out. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 13:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- NeverTry4Me, Please can you link to few sources for me here? ─ The Aafī 07:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  - NeverTry4Me has been indefinitely blocked for a lack of competence, I think his loud "strong keep" can be ignored by whoever closes this as lacking any evidence for the claims. Fram (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Half Good Killer

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

Non-notable short film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete As per nom, no RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Fosston, Minnesota#History. Participants are invited to selectively merge verifiable content to the new location. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Cordwood Pete

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

Fakelore hoax with all sources stemming from a single common web article. Google search gives scant results, seems to be not remotely notable. Toogs (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Negligible sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC).

Folklore or Fakelore by its very definition, is substantially untrue. Make sure you cancel all the characters on this Misplaced Pages page wile you're at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/Tall_tale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray.lowry (talk • contribs) 13:52, February 3, 2022 (UTC)

Delete "Folklore" is a story that has been passed down, is told in many cases, and has wide use. The factual reality of the story is not what matters. Some stories are in fact true, but most are fiction. We have articles on fiction. That is not the issue. Our articles on fiction cover things that have recieved coverage in reliable sources. So in the case of folklore, it is a story widely shared in various formats. True, most of the forms folklore is shared are not directly documentable, it is parents telling stories to children, teachers repeating stories, cub scout leaders telling stories, etc. However there are ways to document that the story does exist. We lack the documents here to show that this is a widely told of character who is widely spoken about. So there is no evidence that this is a generally accepted person in the existing folklore. So we should delete the article, unless someone can find sources that shows that this is an existing character in the folklore.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
To add to this, I called this out as a hoax because the article confusingly presents itself as genuine folklore. If it were to remain, it would need to be extensively rewritten to clarify that Cordwood Pete is a relatively recent invention with a specific source. Regardless, I'm not advocating the article be deleted by virtue of fakelore, but rather (as above) general notability. Toogs (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Preliminary Keep or Merge to, I guess, Tall tale#United States. About notability: The story (Invented by that homepage? Can we judge from anything besides circumstantial evidence?) is taken up in detail in the travel guides by Eric Dregni /. There is a short description of the house in Minnesota Open House, and more about the figure himself in Minnesota Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities. Unfortunately I don't get a proper preview, but Google shows me the start of the story, so it does not seem insignificant. This scholarly source (published in the Russian journal "Philological Class") does not give any details, but it does call Cordwood Pete a "folklore character". Is there a reason why the fact that the figure made it into the travel guides (no matter his origin) should not count towards notability? Daranios (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Good points about notability, but I would caution against including Cordwood Pete in any list that implies genuine folklore. The obituary of Fosston mayor Arvid Clementson says:
In his tireless effort to promote Fosston, he created the "Cordwood Pete" legend, which has generated a statewide interest for tourism ... Proceeds from his Cordwood Pete activities were designed to support local tourism activities including Fosston's Annual Heritage Days.
This, the dubious claim of a "time capsule" found in 2001, and the fact that no older references exist leads me to believe that Cordwood Pete is purely an invention of the 21st century. I'm concerned these secondary sources (some of which seem rather tongue-in-cheek) are, knowingly or not, perpetuating a hoax. It feels wrong for Misplaced Pages to do the same. I think if the article remains, its first lines should reflect the information in the above blockquote. Toogs (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Toogs: Now that obituary is a good find! Even if editorial control of that site is not clear to me, it is a source that makes clear that the character is a recent invention, without us as Misplaced Pages editors having to put that together somehow. So I would still like to keep the article based on the secondary sources found, even if they are not very auspicious, about this "legend, which has generated a statewide interest for tourism". But I wholeheartedly agree to a rephrasing of the introductory part along the lines you've suggested. Daranios (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Weak keep per Daranios. This needs careful rewrite as it may be a hoax that generated secondary coverage sufficient to become notable. Looking at the sources, Midwest Marvels is a 2006 touristy book, but published by a reliable institution (University of Minnesota Press) and the author is an academic (Eric Dregni). It talks about the time capsule and such. Was Dregni duped? It's not like his article adheres to high academic standards, but it is not for us to say he was duped or not, I think. I have trouble accessing other sources (snippet view/copyright), but Dregni's treatment suggests some notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay folks, I am the culprit who created this page. If you read the 2010 version it has five citations, including the obituary referenced above (although the site it connected to is now a paid-search site). It began with the sentence "Cordwood Pete is a tall-tale character.." and currently reads "Cordwood Pete is a fictional character..." I also inserted the generic pictures of lumberjacks. This all began when I visited Fosston and stopped to use the bathroom at the museum/gift shop the locals claim was Cordwood Pete's home. I looked up the name on my phone (literally while sitting on the toilet), was amused by the several references I found, and created the page when I returned home. Excuse the heck out of me for perpetuating the myth created by residents of some small town in Minnesota. It was not my intent to create a hoax. If you google "Cordwood Pete" several dozen sites pop up, about half of which obtained their info directly from the Misplaced Pages page. That says something about the reach of Misplaced Pages. But Pete is also mentioned in several travel books, to include one in German, and one academic tract in Russian about modern mythology. My feelings will not be hurt if you delete the page. I would rewrite it, and make it acceptable to all of you, but though once very active in Misplaced Pages page creation, I not longer know how to really do it. As you can see, I no longer even know who to even sign off correctly. Have a good day. And thank you for your participation in Misplaced Pages, which as a world-wide treasure. https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ray.lowry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray.lowry (talk • contribs) 19:12, February 5, 2022 (UTC)

Ray.lowry, You can refresh yourself on how to sign at WP:SIGN :) Can you join the discussion at Talk:Cordwood Pete? I am concerned about the accuracy of captions. In particular, how can we have a photo of the subject if he is a character from fiction? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to Fosston, Minnesota#History, where he is already mentioned, and perhaps expand on that a bit, making clear that he's a legend invented for touristic purposes. The sources mentioned above don't really support an article, but they can be used to flesh out this town's local history a bit. Sandstein 08:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Fosston, Minnesota#History per Sandstein. While that section could be expanded a bit with information from the sources listed above, I would not recommend an actual merger, as the only true secondary source being used in the current article is being used to cite the information on the time capsule, which, based on the evidence above regarding Cordwood Pete being a relatively recent invention, is highly dubious. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment Interesting bit of local lore, could it be merged into the article about the town instead? Not sure it warrants an article on its own, but it could surely be noted as a paragraph in the town's article? Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ó Fathaigh

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

This seems to be either a hoax or a bunch of very hard to verify WP:OR with a few reliable bits thrown in to make it look believable. For example, the forefather "Fathadh mac Aonghus", is not to be found in Google Books and doesn't seem to appear in reliable sources in Google otherwise. "Cormac Ó Fathaigh" is said to be the first with the surname, but again all traces of such a person are missing . The episode with "Uilic de Burgo": equally unverifiable.

The sources used in the article either don't support the article, or are copies of Misplaced Pages.

Note that the name O Fathaigh obviously exists, and some information about it can be found from reliable sources, e.g. here. But that doesn't excuse the existence of an article which seems 90% made up around these few facts.

If this is indeed largely a hoax or unverifiable, then a number of other articles will need to be looked at as well (e.g. Fathadh mac Aonghus and Tadhg an tSleibhe Ó Fathaigh exist here since 2009, but are completely unverifiable). Fram (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. As long as there are Misplaced Pages articles with people of this name, this can exist as a namelist, at a minimum, per MOS:DABNAME and WP:APOS. Remove WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not cleanup, but at some point WP:TNT comes into play. If the vast majority of an article is this dubious, there is little reason to use this as the start of something acceptable instead of simply deleting it, and recreating from scratch if wanted. Fram (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  - OK. I see that you boldly removed the suspected OR, reducing it to a name list, but it was reverted. Seem like a content dispute that WP:APO could have been consulted, but this is a quirk of namelists vs regular articles. No worries.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
    - No worries from me either, your keep is a valid opinion but I just wanted to explain why I saw it differently this time. Fram (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing in the guidelines stopping the deletion of this as a name list. We've got articles about two people with the name. A dab page will be needed here only if both of them are commonly known under their surname, which I take not to be the case. This leaves it as a surname list, and a surname list of two people is allowed as a navigational aid by WP:APONOTE. However, that is not a guideline, but an essay without community consensus, and there are very good reasons to do the opposite of what it recommends for such very short lists. First, the list is not an improvement on the search engine: the two articles about the people will appear at the very top of the search results , which will incidentally also reveal all other relevant content on Misplaced Pages (like the various articles about related names that mention "Ó Fathaigh", or the other non-notable people with the name mentioned here and there). Second, unlike the search results, the list doesn't automatically stay up to date (and there are no processes that I'm aware of that help here), so if a third article gets created about another person with the name, then the list would immediately become an obstruction rather than an aid to navigation. – Uanfala (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep, as it is useful as a namelist if nothing else.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/976014502 was a sensible little disambiguation page. But the fact that there's quite a lot of stuff here that just is not in the sources cited when adding it, is definitely a problem. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I tried something similar before this AfD at this version, but no luck. Deleting the page and restoring just the first three revisions may be a solution. Fram (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep I agree, valid page, keep and fix - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep and trim. The heart of this article is a valid {{surname}} page. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Some plausible sources were provided, but no clear consensus emerged on whether or not the sources are adequate to establish notability. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

CARS24

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

All the references (including the Hindu Business Line, Financial Express and ET ones) in the article on this unlisted company are either interviews or funding/launch announcements. Unable to find any coverage independent and substantial enough for WP:NCORP through search engines, so bringing here. hemantha (brief) 03:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. hemantha (brief) 03:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. hemantha (brief) 03:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

~~Comment~~ Keep found some Bloomberg and Nikkei coverage. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Update to change to keep. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep with the Bloomberg and Nikkei links of Lerdsuwa above. Gusfriend (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
What makes you think they are independent enough for WP:NCORP? Bloomberg article has "he said" for every para on the company (rest are about DST or general notes on India). Same with the latest Nikkei - there isn't a single para that's not a quote or a restatement of company line. I hit paywall for the other, but if it's the same as this, it's a routine funding announcement which NCORP explicitly bars. hemantha (brief) 10:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep i think this article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TzarN64 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT. Pilaz (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

TzarN64, can you explain why you believe this article needs to be kept? ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 15:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete: as per Hemantha. They are correct, sources are masquerading as journalistic pieces. Most of them (in fact, all of them) are coordinated PR work. It's high time for us to reassess these Indian media sources, especially the business news editons of WP:THEHINDU and WP:INDIANEXP. - Hatchens (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: will not consider Nikkei Asia Review articles as independent ones because, it is the same group which manages Nikkei 225 at Tokyo Stock Exchange where the SoftBank Group is listed, the primary investor of CARS24.(proof). It is quite evident that WP:COI is overlapping all over and intentionally the information related to SoftBank has been omitted in the page. We're witnessing extremely smart Misplaced Pages editing. -Hatchens (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Then how about this interview by NYSE , would it be considered independent? (Softbank might owns some stocks listed in US too but not sure about this.) I think the argument goes too far. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lerdsuwa: NYSE doesn't operate or fund any media news portal (unlike Nikkei). They have there own in-house news dissemination process and their Youtube channel is just a part of it. But, if someone wants to quote and cite a youtube channel or a video, then one has to read WP:NOYT essay and take a call accordingly because there are many caveats. -Hatchens (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP with reliable sources indicated by Gusfriend. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 15:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria, volume of "coverage" often means an absense of quality references. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 18:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep informat enough with no advertising unlike many currently written corp pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuredivay (talk • contribs) 2022-02-17T12:41:30 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep meets WP:NCORP. This new article by Khaleej Times provides significant coverage. ❯❯❯Pravega 07:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
An article credited to "A staff reporter", with text like "CARS24 is revolutionising", 4/10 paragraphs being quotes of CEO and no indication they've talked to anyone else cisn't WP:INDEPENDENT enough for NCORP. Hemantha (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- The first sentence of that article acknowledges that it is based on a company announcement. Here is the *exact* same article with the same photo published in a Gulf News. Here is the *exact* same article in GadgetVote and again the *exact* same article in GCC Business. Fails ORGIND therefore fails NCORP. HighKing 13:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment So far, none of the Keep !votes have put forward any references that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Can someone post the best WP:THREE references so they can be evaluated against NCORP please? HighKing 13:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I've changed mine to Keep, if it really matters that mine is a comment or keep vote. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep agree that enough credible citations exists. I don't agree that announcements aren't acceptable. They would not be if it is copy/pasted as provided by a company or press release, but if it is reworded and contains info about the company other than an announcement, then it should be OK. These sources provided by prior editor Lerdsuwa seem good , and . Zeddedm (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to establish that WP:NCORP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Dale A. Martin

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

Non-notable regional businessman. This profile is poorly sourced, and contains neither credible assertion nor evidence of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 03:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 03:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 03:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 03:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep "In 2020 he was awarded the Grand Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria. In 2021 he was made a Commander's Cross of the Hungarian Order of Merit.". Probably the most ridiculous AfD nomination I have seen in over 18 years on Misplaced Pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
You probably haven’t looked at many AfD nominations, then. I suppose your argument is that those awards satisfy WP:ANYBIO, but I rather doubt it. (I have not evaluated sources for other claims to notability - you would expect a CEO of Siemens Hungary to have some press coverage.)

The Hungarian order of Merit (Magyar Érdemrend) comes in many grades. From , I found Dale A. Martin a Magyar Érdemrend középkeresztjének polgári tagozatának kitüntetését veheti majd át személyesen a koronavírus elmúltával, which machine translations have a hard time with but I assume the középkeresztjének part is translated by "commander’s cross" in the English article. There is an hu-wp article about recipents at that level which shows 20 to 40 recipients per year. That is hardly a well-known and significant award or honor - see for instance that MILHIST discussion which argued that only the highest grades should be counted. Even without grade considerations, that site seems to indicate that the order of merit is not the highest civilian distinction in Hungary.

For the Austrian one (Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria), the sourcing is not great but I found that facebook post from an official source. The transcript says Am 23. Juli 2020 erhielt Dale András Martin, CEO von Siemens Ungarn, das große Ehrenzeichen für Verdienste um die Republik Österreich (...), which refers to the 8th rank of the decoration ("Grand Decoration of Honour" in the English article). From the de-wp article, one can find a handy list of all recipients (in 2012), ctrl-F for "Großes Ehrenzeichen" returns more than a thousand hits. So, not all that selective either. Tigraan 14:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

reply Come on, Andy, dial back the over-the-top rhetoric here. These awards are handed out to lubricate the social machinery by flattering business and political types. The guy's a senior honcho in a local branch of a major multinational, they want to reward him for some business deals, so they give him a low-level gong to hang on his dress suit. (I seem to recall a medal The Saint wore, which he demurely said he'd been awarded for rescuing a Greek royalist's laundry from the dry cleaners.) --Orange Mike | Talk 12:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep - This just about scrapes a WP:BASIC pass based on the following sources 1 2. FOARP (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 01:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I Heart Arlo

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

This series was not reviewed by a single major critic. It fails WP:GNG and the guidelines set at MOS:TV. I redirected the article to Arlo the Alligator Boy but that action was reverted by an editor advising deletion. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I've found a long review in Hollywood Insider and a shorter one in Common Sense Media plus a few articles about its production/release. Ultimately it could be notable, but I would not mind a merge/redirect to Arlo the Alligator Boy. --Cavarrone 10:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep I've also found a review on But Why Tho and The Good Men Project. NemesisAT (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist in hope of getting more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Spartaz 21:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Vithoji Rao Holkar

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

This article has only one source. I can't find more reliable source. There are some sources in Google, but they are dependent on Misplaced Pages only. Delete if better sources are not found. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

SOFT KEEP as I see some here. --NeverTry4Me - TT page 09:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment First the article had one reference, but now it has also been removed. Now it doesn't have any reference. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

*Comment There is no significant coverage about him anywhere. It fails WP:GNG ThePremium Boy 03:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Ugh? He was a notable historical figure in India and a prince who was killed for a political reason, noted his rebellion and his death event by historian as end of the bridge is Holkar's Tomb, a temple to Mahadeo ( Siva ) in an oblong enclosure , erected in memory of Vithoji Rao Holkar, who was trampled to death by an elephant at Poona in 1802 . His tomb was erected as a temple. I'm inclined to agree with the fact there's still actual historic significance and substance therefore enough for an article showing this. Searching his name in Hindi language have a bit more info. VocalIndia (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: As it stands, the article cannot be kept due to the dire lack of sources, and should be draftified at best. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Geschichte source. VocalIndia (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment The nominator was blocked as a sock. VocalIndia (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment Here are more sources I've found recently Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency - Volume 18, Issue 2 - Page 281 stated Vithoji Holkar Killed , 1801 , the respect of his people , Bájiráv gave his attention to distressing and pillaging all who had opposed either himself or his father.
In Page 361 stated In 1801 Vithoji Holkar was captured in a house in Bhámburda village , and by order of Bájiráv Peshwa to please Sindia , was dragged to death at the foot of an elephant through the streets of Poona . It was Yaahvantrav Holkar's rage at his brother's murder that led to the flight of Brijiritv from Poona and the treaty of Bassein (30th December 1802).
Maharashtra State Gazeteers: Maratha period - Page 115 — In March 1801 the rebels were defeated near the Māņ river . Vithoji Holkar was captured by Bāpū Gokhale and sent to Pooņā . Bājī Rāv wished to make an example of him so as to deter the partisans of Amột Rāv from further attempts .
Selections from the Letters, Despatches, and Other State Papers — Vithoji Holkar , brother of the Marátha Chief , fell into Bájiráv's hands , and he caused him to be executed in his ... This cruel murder took place in the spring of 1801 , and on the 26th October 1802 the Resident at Poona announces ...
Baji Rao II and the East India Company, 1796-1818 - Page 28 — Vithoji Holkar began his depredations in the districts round about Pandharpur . ... Furthermore , in April , Vithoji Holkar was seized by Bapu Gokhale and sent to Poona. and many other sources
, , , .....

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Vithoji Rao Holkar to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". VocalIndia (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion on the potential for draftification may be helpful in obtaining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 01:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Per VocalIndia StellarHalo (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete This article and AfD are a good illustration of why notability standards exist. The sources demonstrated by VocalIndia are independent and reliable (at least on the surface) but the totality of the text is not all that significant. What kind of article can be written from such passing mentions? Well, one like this one which barely mentions the nominal article subject and concerns mostly what others did. Even some of the actions of the article subject that are present are unsourced so we don't actually know much about them. Take out the unsourced and other people's actions and what is left is: He was born, he was captured, he was trampled by an elephant, and he was buried. Not actually an article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Commemt What the hell? He was a member of the royal court of the Holkar dynasty, a member of the Royal family, played a key role in the political rebellion against the other king, inherently notable as Holkar political system is an Absolute Monarchy where each prince can be considered to hold national or international office, making articles about them inherently valid as a US Senator or UK Minister of Parliament. Do note, the monarchy of Holkar kingdom can't be compared with today's useless Constitutional monarchy, there is definitely a greater notability as the royal court fills both political and communal functions. I've voted 'keep' for someone living circa 250 years ago that is quite a lot of detail including a multi-page biography that someone wrote about him. More than sufficient for a historical figure. If this were about someone from the 1940s or 1950s, then I would say that they do not meet WP:GNG. Even if they were from the historical period, would probably agree with the delete votes, but this type of referencing from millennia ago, passes WP:NPOL for his political significant. VocalIndia (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus that membership in a royal court grants inherent notability. At most, this argument suggests that this should be merged or redirected to Holkar. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hum? Royal Court is equivalent to the Privy Council at that time, by handling the court's internal affairs and also served as an interlocutor between the Raja (king) and other royal agencies, including the Parliament ! VocalIndia (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Holkar per Eggishorn. Passing mentions are not significant coverage. Pilaz (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Pilaz: Agh! ⛔ This is a Revenge back of AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nigel Paulet, 18th Marquess of Winchester 😅. It's not a good manner. Shame on you. The sources I posted above are significant information. I've no time to research more info in Tamil language. VocalIndia (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment For example AfD outcomes for Indian prince and historical figure, see

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mirza Babur
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bhim Singh Rana,

Why guys are trying to compare between the modern political system and monarchy? Well, I also agree with Respected editor Bearian's Proper his own standards (not a guideline): "Even Spouses and children of Modern's deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention.". In this case, "House of Holkar" is not a deposed one, but very powerful ruling dynasty at that time. He had played major roles in the political affairs of his dynasty and cases of succession to the throne. He appears as a significant player in numerous histories of His kingdom's game of thrones and so is clearly notable. How much do you need? VocalIndia (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

What we need is actual sourcing for these statements. He had played major roles in the political affairs of his dynasty and cases of succession to the throne. How so? Why was his role "major"? Who says? He appears as a significant player in numerous histories Does he? Where are these histories? These statements appear to be extrapolations or interpretations of the sources that actually have been so far presented. What we know from these sources is nothing like as detailed or as significant as these claims. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Eggishorn Check again above sources, " In 1801 Vithoji Holkar was captured in a house in Bhámburda village , and by order of Bájiráv Peshwa to please Sindia , was dragged to death at the foot of an elephant through the streets of Poona . It was Yaahvantrav Holkar's rage at his brother's murder that led to the flight of Brijiritv from Poona and the treaty of Bassein (30th December 1802)." Ohh You know our country's history more than a native Indian? What is your problem? VocalIndia (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"The fact that he was killed for political reasons adds to this notability, and people can be curious about the basic facts of his life. An independent article makes the scant information about his life more easily accessible. You need to learn more AfD outcomes for historical figures, here is one Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eutropia (sister of Constantine I). This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encylopedia of the English language speaking world. References to sources in Google Books and Tamil languages other than English are entirely acceptable to establish notability, although Book sources are preferable when readily available to choose from. VocalIndia (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@VocalIndia:, Nativism and nationalism are poor substitutes for argumentation. I did read the sources and Indian nationality is not a prerequisite to source evaluation. Even in this passage, there is still no support for your statements. Where is it said that he played a major role in the succession? Where is it said that his role in the kingdom was significant? The only events that his role is significant in according to this was his death. Every other claim you make for his notability is unsupported. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"The children of a monarch are notable." general consensus: says Necrothesp. He is eligible for an article whether or he had not involvement in the Holkar game of throne. Forgot to add other significant texts "Vithoji Holkar's death may be one of the factors influencing Yashwant Rao'sdecision, deserves the importance attributed to it." per . VocalIndia (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep, clearly passes GNG. The nominator being a sock might have contributed to the AFD being nominated in the first place. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ze'ev Smason

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BISHOPS or be notable outside of a child molestation case by a volunteer at the congregation. BriefEdits (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete Clear failure to satisfy WP:GNG Where are the sources? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete No sources and an orphan page.Gusfriend (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. WP:NCORP was not met. Reliably sourced content may be added to Citigroup if desired. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You Scod18

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

2 sources for acquisition of this company. Only one reuters source also for the acquisition. Search on google news brings the same stuff no notable article. Maybe merge with citigroup Greatder (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

DELETE - not notable. RemotelyInterested (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge to Citigroup without redirect. Fails WP:NORG, there could be a line about its acquisition in the Citigroup article, but other than that I couldn't find anything else. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion on whether there is any content that's worthwhile to merge would be helpful in ascertaining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete One small set of articles about a WP:ROUTINE business transaction is not remotely enough to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Anti-cult movement

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

This page is a list of largely unsubstantiated attempts to characterize anti-cult activists as themselves leading a cult-like movement. In my opinion there could be a good article on this topic but the present article has made no progress toward being a helpful encyclopedia article. Ungulates (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that we could have a good article on this topic, but that certainly wouldn't cite fringe sources such as those published by CESNUR or its leader, Massimo Introvigne. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep and improve.--Surv1v4l1st 23:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources, which appear to substantiate the page. Could be improved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:50, 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 05:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Violent Cop (2000 Kant Leung film)

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

Potentially non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. I couldn't find anything in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "DePRODed. A number (if not most) of PRODed HK films have survived an AfD. A proper AfD would allow the community to comment and possibly to substantially improve and reference this article."

So, maybe there are sources out there that others can find? DonaldD23 talk to me 02:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I found this source and added it to the article one month ago:
1. "火爆刑警" . Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). 2006-03-27. p. 27. Retrieved 2021-12-30 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
and added it to the article. Can editors find any other sources? Cunard (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep per consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Zachary Lipton

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

See no nonability, neither a musician nor as researcher Loew Galitz (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
comment need more citation for notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrycruise01 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete - Just one reference - needs more for notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep has a paragraph in a Forbes article and a few other hits in PC mag Australia and the CBC, found in Google search. Several hits also in Gscholar as an author, several papers on AI.Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Mild keep -- seems like a notable scholar who is interviewed periodically (Is the use of Machine Learning and AI Ethical in todays markets? - Compass) Gusfriend (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep I saw a few direct references in Google News. This looks like a job for expansion, not deletion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Weak Keep - The article definitely needs expansion to establish notability, but there are some sources available that may allow it to better demonstrate his notability. For example Your AI versus my AI: Zachary Lipton on the dangers of the AI and machine learning hype cycle, an interview with India-based Observer Research Foundation, which appears reliable and also provides a short preamble that describes his work as a researcher who helped develop Amazon's deep learning as well as some of his published works. Dfadden (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

BHB Cable TV

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

Only two dead primary reference, notability or importance not proven. Greatder (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. Liz 06:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Asianet Satellite Communications

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

One reference in one paragraph in one article. Other is not reachable and another just yellow page, notability or importance not proven. Update: A contributor has provided sufficient sources and I propose to keep the article. Greatder (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep I searched and found more news in Google. I have updated the page. They have an IPO coming up. Chelokabob (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems notable, I support keep then. Greatder (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep, having an upcoming IPO doesn't necessarily make a company is notable, they need to pass WP:NCORP which this does seem to. For instance, Regional Language Television in India: Profiles and Perspectives dedicates an entire page to it. The SAGE published journal article The Indian news media industry: Structural trends and journalistic implications makes somewhat extensive references to it and indicates that it was the parent company of Asianet Star Communications and Asianet News Network before its restructuring and breakup between three seperate parties, so a lot of older publications refer to it as simply "Asianet". I'll have to dig more into it but at this stage this is clearly both notable and historically significant. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. Liz 05:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Carolyn Cannon-Alfred

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

I am unable to identify any publications besides the coauthorship of her book for patients. The item in Ebony appears to be an advertisement for the book. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. The citations provided are two extremely brief directory listings and an advertisement through which one can order the book. I find no other reliable sources that are useful for creating a biographical article about the subject. --Kinu /_c 06:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notabity. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

*Delete for reasons given above. Effectively unsourced, even thought it is small micro article. scope_creep 13:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment I have added a second item in Ebony that is a story about a Los Angeles City Council resolution and ceremony honoring her and her husband in 1971. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Assuming you linked to the correct source, that's the same advertorial as the one that was already provided. --Kinu /_c 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my error. I deleted the duplicate. I also added in her PhD information and a 1961 Science journal article by her on the same topic. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG - She is a subject of Black women scientists in the United States (Indiana University Press, 1999), Contributions of African American scientists to the fields of science, medicine, and inventions (Nova Science Publishers, 2010), Blacks in science and medicine (Hemisphere Pub. Corp, 1990), and this non-bylined obituary.Beccaynr (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC) And via the WP Library: Chamber's investment in South Central Medical Center 20 years ago pays off (Southern California Business, 1994, discussing the book and the medical center. Beccaynr (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment. The entry in Blacks in science and medicine lists the subject's place and date of birth, education and career progression very summarily without commenting on her notability, and cites one co-authored publication. Is that substantial enough coverage? I've seen similarly minor coverage dismissed in other AfDs. Ficaia (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, so from my view, in combination with other independent and reliable sources, yes, her inclusion in Blacks in science and medicine provides some support for notability due to its synthesis of her biographical and career information. Beccaynr (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:GNG with book sources provided by Beccaynr. Article needs an update as it reads as if she is alive. NemesisAT (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Two valid book entries means there much more there. scope_creep 04:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Based on the RS provided by Beccaynr - nice work!!!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment. Black Women Scientists in the United States lists American Men and Women of Science as a reference. If someone can verify that she is in the latter, then that would both help support the notability case as well as potentially source biographical details. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sofia Zhukova

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

Fails WP:GNG. Brief search for significant coverage mainly turns up various tabloids. Russian sources cited are state-owned (AiF.ru is owned by the city of Moscow), and as such are not independent in criminal matters. There is a brief mention in a book from a niche publisher specializing in "True Crime | Thriller | Mystery | Sci-Fi/Fantasy | History | Horror | Memoir". Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC) edited 04:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Google turns up a fair bit more than that. I'll leave it to others to determine whether she's notable, or just newsworthy. Star Garnet (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep - I disagree that Lenta.ru and Gazeta.ru are unreliable for this specific case, because it does not have any specific political aspect to it that would necessarily make them unreliable based on being owned ultimately by state-owned Sberbank. Looking for other coverage I see that it the case was covered in the Ukrainian media, in multiple sources. The non-tabloid, state-owned outlets Vesti.ru and RIA-Novosti also covered the story. Since this is a purely domestic, criminal story, there is no reason to believe that these sources will be unreliable on this topic. We should always keep in mind that different sources are reliable for different things - I would not rely on any of these sources for information about Russia's aggression in Ukraine, but for a simple criminal story I see no reason not to. Even without this, the Ukrainian coverage (one of Zhukova's victims was Ukrainian) shows notability by itself. FOARP (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. Serial killers are usually notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Web banner. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hero image

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

This is a WP:DICDEF that should just be a one-line description in web banner. ZimZalaBim 03:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 03:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Web banner. Doesn't appear to have the coverage from reliable sources required to meet GNG, but the term is widespread enough to warrant a redirect to the notable related topic. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete Hero image is covered in Web banner and doesn't seem important enough even for a redirect. Lamona (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Web banner: Definitely WP:DICDEF. It's best to be briefly discussed in the target article. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 06:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Redirect and smerge as appropriately suggested. Pure Dicdef. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Oundle School. This is complicated, with the reliability of UK Who's Who a key factor as so many keeps are in part reliant on that. Given that consensus, there is no other significant factor present here to keep Kerr-Dineen's article. However, nor is there BLP issue sourcing that merits delete. As such, the article history is under the redirect should anyone want to selectively merge. Star Mississippi 01:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Kerr-Dineen

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

Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage about this person. Certainly accomplished, but the current sourcing is comprised of mentions, and PR pieces . Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 00:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 00:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 00:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 00:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Head of major English private school. Meets GNG from sources, particularly Who's Who. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC).
Delete Nothing in Jstor or GScholar, only hyper-local stuff in Gnews. Mostly mentioned in passing as being at the school. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep. She is Head of a major English public school. Clearly meets GNG. She has a Who's Who page, has articles about her in newspapers and has a chapter in a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suffolk J (talk • contribs) 08:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC) — Suffolk J (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep as meets WP:GNG, though the article isn't great with proper citation. But there are SIGCOV and not necessary for everyone to have in JSTOR or GScholar(Are we too much dependent on Jstor, GScholar and nytimes here?). --NeverTry4Me - TT page 09:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment Does anyone else find it disturbing that we include the head of Oundle's bog-standard response following an Ofsted report (“This inspection report is an independent record of the work of every member of the staff community as evidenced in the outstanding quality of the outcomes experienced and shown by our pupils”) when almost exactly the same thing has been said by every head of every school in England? If you happen to be head of a busy bog-standard state-funded school, no one cares. I would feel more comfortable with Kerr-Dineen's article if it dwelt on her notable achievements rather than assuming that she's notable ex officio because Oundle is an important school. The article on Oundle_School contains a list of notable headmasters. Are all headmasters notable, or do they have to contribute something unique, or make a lasting impression in educational literature, histories, etc., or at least in national newspapers, to qualify as notable? Elemimele (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The Who's Who entry clinches the matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC).

I'm not arguing for delete; I think this is a keep too. But I wanted to register disapproval of the "head of major school" argument, on the grounds that I'd rather heads earn their notability than inherit it. In her case, clearly the editors of who's who believe she's earned it, and that's enough. I might have a grump on the talk-page about some of the content. Elemimele (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:PER/WP:EVERYONEELSE. AfD discussions are not a vote. Pilaz (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete, neither GNG nor NACADEMIC are met, and also a likely violation of WP:NOTCV. Being the head of a "major English private school" (what constitutes such a claim remains to be explained) doesn't make one inherently notable, since notability is in the quasi-totality of cases not inherited. Editors who cite the UK Who's Who are wrong about the reliability of the publication. On top of the fact that Who's Who directories are not reliable sources (per almost every discussion at RSN), and besides the fact that Misplaced Pages is not a directory, this discussion at RSN based on a 2004 investigative piece by the Spectator has uncovered that UK's Who's Who has admitted in the past that it doesn't fact check every entry and corrections are only made upon mutual agreement - meaning that if a person says they studied in Oxford rather than in London, and they just ignore requests from correction from UK Who's Who (assuming anybody has lodged a complaint, which I find hard to believe since UKWW is behind a paywall), nothing is done. That means that UKWW cannot be considered a reliable source and cannot therefore count towards any GNG analysis. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC) edited: Pilaz (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- And just to add to my previous comment, the remaining in-depth coverage she receives is run-of-the-mill local press coverage from Oundle Chronicle (a town of 5,000 where she heads the local school) and from a 2009 East London and West Essex Guardian piece, from when she was the head of another school, which interviewed her with hard-hitting questions such as "Do you have any pets?" "What's the one thing you can't do without in the morning?", "What is your favourite film?". Great if you're trying to remember your forgotten password, not so great to prove notability. Pilaz (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  - Just because there have been some issues in the past with Who's Who does not mean that it is not a reliable verifier of notability. Misplaced Pages describes it as listing the biographies of '33,000 influential people', https://en.wikipedia.org/Who%27s_Who_(UK). Kerr-Dineen's page can certainly do with some improvement. However the fact that the UK's major source of biographical data, which is a reliable source, has a section on her is evidence of notability for me. Suffolk J (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — Suffolk J (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    - Per WP:SOURCE: Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. UK Who's Who has a poor reputation for fact-checking as per the Spectator piece and its own executives; 2 other editors concur with this assertion. Regarding your comment about the Misplaced Pages page saying they are "influential people", see WP:CIRCULAR: Misplaced Pages is a user-generated source and cannot be used to assert notability. Finally, we don't have an obligation to list people who are in a Who's Who on Misplaced Pages, because Misplaced Pages is not a directory. Pilaz (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep, as there are enough sources to show notability, albeit barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion of the validity of the sourcing would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete because of issues like hyper local coverage and routine coverage I would say we do not have enough sourcing to truly pass GNG and we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- I find Pilaz's argument above very persuasive, and he has clearly demonstrated that default claiming British Who's Who meets reliability guidelines in not accurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep as she has an entry in UK Who's Who (A & C Black/Bloomsbury Publishing & Oxford University Press can be relied on to provide reliable sources for notability) Piecesofuk (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:RSP: There is no consensus on the reliability of Who's Who UK. It is a reference work with information mainly collected from the people concerned. Editors are divided on whether sufficient editorial control exists, and whether it is an independent source. See RSP entry.
  - It's about it being a source of notability: From the BBC: "Who's Who is among the world's most recognised and respected reference books. It has been published annually by A & C Black since 1897 and was the first biographical book of its kind. It contains over 33,000 short biographies of living noteworthy and influential individuals, from all walks of life, worldwide." The Wall Street Journal: What is it that really puts the stamp of eminence on a modern British life? Certainly not receiving a title in an official honors list. But during your lifetime, two things do count today: having an entry in "Who's Who" and getting asked to choose your eight favorite records on BBC Radio-4's "Desert Island Discs." Piecesofuk (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    - It may be respected in the UK (it is) and the individuals may be influential (many are), but if the information is autobiographical and submitted by the biographees, it is WP:PRIMARY, a WP:SPS, and by extension not independent from the subject. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC both require secondary, independent sources. On top of that, Who's Who has a poor track record with fact-checking and corrections, which goes against WP:REPUTABLE's requirement of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so it cannot be considered a reliable source. All of this is reflected in the Misplaced Pages-wide lack of consensus on this source. Pilaz (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
      I agree with what you are saying. But we're not using UK Who's Who here for some questionable biographical information but just as a method to determine whether a person is deemed to be notable enough for an English Misplaced Pages entry. I think that having a UK Who's Who entry should be considered when determining notability. Piecesofuk (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
      Per the general notability guideline: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sources should be secondary sources. Who's Who is neither reliable nor secondary. Therefore it cannot be used to determine the notability of an individual. Pilaz (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC) edited: Pilaz (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
      There is no consensus on the reliability of Who's Who UK. It's a secondary source published by A & C Black/Bloomsbury Publishing & Oxford University Press, who are independent of the subject: they have no relationship other than deciding that the subject is notable enough for their publication. Piecesofuk (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
      If there's no community-wide consensus on reliability, it means you can't simply call it reliable and make it count towards WP:GNG. It's a WP:TERTIARY source which compiles autobiographical sources (WP:PRIMARY), by the way, not a secondary source. Pilaz (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete I'm unconvinced that being mentioned in Who's Who is enough WP:SIGCOV, as entries there are not independent on the subject and inclusion in the list is in half of the entries based not on one's personal achievements or notability but due to the holding of a title. As I don't believe that their criteria for the notability of a title is equivalent to Misplaced Pages's and see the source as generally unreliable, I support deletion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Kerr-Dineen does not hold a title. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC).

Delete I was planning to review this at NPP and I must have looked at 40 times over two weeks, and couldn't decide if she was notable or not. I can't determine if there is an article there. I thought initially it was some kind of government appointed position, based some kind old tradition, perhaps in existance for centuries in the UK, not necessarily secret but obscure but I couldn't find anything. I don't see how it can be notable. It is less than borderline. There is three references that are whos who, but that profile is self-written, so they not RS. The rest is a mix of the school and local news. No international coverage, no mainstream newspapers. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep 00:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
DELETE - agree with Pilaz. RemotelyInterested (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Article on non-notable individual created by single-interest COI account. Ericoides (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Both quality and quantity of sources are lacking, as Pilaz and scopecreep have shown. Avilich (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete: I was not able to locate enough coverage that could help the subject pass GNG. That said, I don't see any indication about "the headmistress" being a post equivalent to or above WP:NACADEMIC#6. ─ The Aafī 11:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Acadmic notability point 6 was meant to be a sub-set of tertiary educational institutions. It was never intended to include any secondary institutions, and it was not meant to be as near comprehensive of tertiary institutions as some have made it out to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Oundle School per WP:ATD-R. Ritchie333 14:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect or selectively merge to Oundle School. Subject doesn't quite seem to meet WP:GNG, but there's enough to not simply delete. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Consensus at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard has determined that Who's Who UK is generally unreliable and is to be equated to a self-published source. See RSP entry. Pilaz (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. What is even going on here? (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Klassi Ghalina & The History of the World

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

Cites IMDB for 3/4ths of references. Issues of notability. _Signed, Pichemist 15:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I have cleaned up the article somewhat. Dunutubble (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Doubt that's enough to elevate the article from the sorry state it's in. _Signed, Pichemist 18:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Hi. I appreciate your feedback. I created the article. I'm new to Misplaced Pages and I want to keep learning. I added several other references from different websites now cause you're right, originally there were many from IMDB. Do you think these references will do? Cause it would really be a pity if the article gets deleted cause Klassi Ghalina is very popular in Malta. I have a question please, can you include youtube links in references? Cause each episode has over 200K, 300K and even 400K sometimes which is truly a lot, considering the fact that Malta has a population of around half a million. Thanks for your feedback.

Comment: The article contains several references from many different sources now so the issue of notability has been addressed. There are references from nine sources. Tbwqbc1 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I added more content and references from several different sources which are reliable, like Gwida, which "has been the best-selling magazine in Malta for over 50 years" Tbwqbc1 (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbwqbc1 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

References

https://contenthouse.com.mt/en/brands/gwida

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Double votes, but nothing policy based as of yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: This article should not be deleted cause it obeys Misplaced Pages's notability requirements for films. In accordance with WP:NOTFILM, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". This article was originally nominated for deletion cause most of the references were from IMDB but now the references from IMDB have been removed and there are several references from independent sources which are reliable like Gwida, which "has been the best-selling magazine in Malta for over 50 years" Tbwqbc1 (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Tbwqbc1, I've struck two of your "keep" !votes above; you are free to add additional comments, but please do not use bolded votes more than once per discussion to avoid confusion. Thanks! --Blablubbs (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep: per above Starship SN20 talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: The series Klassi Ghalina is very popular in Malta and the movies which emerged from the series are the cherries on the cake. On the youtube channel KlassiGhalinaFans, each episode has got thousands of views. For example, Klassi Ghalina Season 2 Episode 7 has 414,000 views when the population of Malta is around half a million. Klassi Ghalina Season 3 Episode 3 has 456,000 views. Klassi Ghalina Season 2 Episode 4 has 409,000 views, etc... so the show is extremely popular. It would really be a pity if it gets deleted, particularly considering the fact that the user who nominated this article for deletion did so cause he said "Cites IMDB for 3/4ths of references. Issues of notability." Now the issue has clearly been addressed as there are no references from IMDB (it is not even a good source anyway with regards to notability, in fact these references were deleted) and now there are references from several different sources which evidently confirm the article's notability. When the user nominated this article for deletion, I sent a message on his talk page, and he agreed that the article was improved a good deal so it's a pity that he simply nominated the article for deletion and no longer commented on it, particularly considering the fact that the reason he submitted the nomination is no longer valid. Thanks. Tbwqbc1 (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment Inclusionary criteria #3 of WP:NFOE may apply here because Malta is small film market. However, the film in question should be notable for "something more than merely having been produced." The article at present does not assert this, and I can't see how existing references meet the notability criteria. Leaning to weak delete as I haven't other searched sources myself. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: The article definitely meets the inclusionary criteria #3 of WP:NFOE cause Malta is surely a small film market and there are several references from different sources which sustain the show's notability.

@Tbwqbc1:Striking additional "keep" !vote. I'd recommend reading the linked explanatory guideline on how to participate in AfD discussions before commenting further. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Torn between this and a no consensus close. Dubious an additional week is going to help but willing to try
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

- Keep Sufficient referencing has been added. _Signed, Pichemist 16:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge to Klassi Ghalina The sources since added do not, unfortunately, demonstrate notability under WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. The references in reliable sources do little more than confirm WP:ITEXISTS. !Voting "Merge" to a as-yet-to-be-created article about the series in the hope that the article creator is able to find sourcing for the series as a whole as an WP:ATD. In the alternative, Userify so that such an article can be created in the article creator's sandbox. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The result was merge to Localisation (humanitarian practice). Sandstein 10:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation

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

I don't see any indication of this 2021 report passing WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep Hi, I wrote the article, so as you might expect, I think it should stay on Misplaced Pages. My reasons are that it meets GNG, it's a notable publication that is widely cited in authoritative academic literature. Every sentence of the synopsis is cited secondary high quality academic sources, and I've quoted various high quality, independent, secondary sources that cite it:

This paper from La Trobe University
This paper from Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility
It's cited dozens of times on this report from Tufts University to the point where it was probably the main source and influence for the whole publication
This publication is from the same publisher, but different authors, so you could maybe argue it either way.
This report from N.E.S.T.A.
Since the AfD started, I added another citation from the Centre for Humanitarian Leadership I had missed it first as they spell localisation with a "z".

I wouldn't just say it's notable, it's a meta analysis of every paper that's been published on Localisation (humanitarian practice), probably the most important publication on the topic. I recognize that humanitarian topics are not well covered in wikipedia, but this is a very important document in the decolonisation of humanitarian aid and it absolutely deserves to be on Misplaced Pages, in my humble opinion.

I see very little activity at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_Development sadly, and yet they are the group who I think would most likely see it like me, I hate how humanitarian and international development stuff is so absent here, if anyone can do the thing where we fairly let people know without trying to bias the result, they should be aware that this is up for deletion, I think. But as I note the last time a AfD was discussed there it was me who proposed deletion and nobody replied or acted, so <throws up hands in despair> lol CT55555 (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add them in, because I'm not sure if it counted or not, but some extra websites that spoke of the publication are:

Save The Children here

The Red Cross here

Google Scholar tells me it's quoted in Hugo Slim's 2022 book, but I don't know how much, so didn't add: Slim, Hugo. Solferino 21: Warfare, Civilians and Humanitarians in the Twenty-First Century. Hurst Publishers, 2022.

Google scholar suggests it's quoted here, but again I don't have access https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/%E2%80%98As-local-as-possible%2C-as-international-as-Wilkinson/82b4a174675c7f23ccb8caf1fd421a607e771e7c

And the paper itself is academically published here DOI:10.1080/01436597.2021.1890994 CT55555 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment I checked in here today, I thought a decision would be made by now and ended up reading the policies...I found myself here https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_(published_works), specifically the General Criteria for published works and also the criteria for academic works, both which seem somewhat relevant. The more I read them, the more it seems very clear to me that this publication is very specifically meeting the criteria. It is the subject of multiple, non trivial publications that are independent of the source, it is influential within its area of influence. I hope the final decision on this will follow the guidance on notability for published works. CT55555 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

PS I think I added this comment at exactly the same time that Extraordinary Writ relisted it. Sorry for any confusion. CT55555 (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge into a section of Overseas Development Institute. It's very rare for an individual paper/report to have a stand-alone article, and rarer still when there's an obvious home for material about the report (like an article about the entity that produced it). For a stand-alone article, we need more than just citations, which is largely what these sources are. We need in depth coverage of the report itself, and preferably published in peer reviewed publications. The bar is relatively high, in other words. Think, like, Two Dogmas of Empiricism level of significance. Otherwise a good report is, well, a good source to cite on Misplaced Pages. — Rhododendrites \\ 04:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites I delayed replying, hope more people would comment. Naturally, I'd prefer a merge than a delete. But here's an attempt to persuade you: I recognise the point you are making, but this is more than just citations. Indeed most of the sources here are just a citations, but if you consider the Tuff's report, it's a major influence for the whole paper. OK, so it's not formally peer reviewed, but it's published by a university, so it probably literally is peer reviewed. The quality of the other thinking that this has influenced is really quite high. So I think nobody could argue that it's rare for a report to have a stand alone article, but I say this report is that rare exception, it's a meta analysis of all of the thinking on the topic, it's important.

And if I didn't persuade you against the merge, I would say that the ODI page is indeed a suitable home for this, but I don't think people go to the ODI page to learn about localisation, so maybe (and maybe not, this is a suggestion) Localisation_(humanitarian_practice) would be the more logical merge to? CT55555 (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It still does not strike me as enough coverage of the subject to overcome a merge, but I'd be curious what others think, too. As for where it should be merged, there are actually two questions built in: where should the content go, and where should this article title redirect a reader. It sounds like it makes sense to add some content about it to the localisation article in addition to the ODI article, but as for where the report title points to (where it redirects), I'm still inclined to point to the entity that produced the report, which in turn could link to the localisation article. If this report were the basis of the whole concept of localisation, such that it were inextricable from that subject, then that might work as a redirect, but it would be unusual. Some of these questions are a matter of style/consistency. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

On the specific point of the redirect, I agree on the style/consistency point. I think if merge is the consensus (I don't support that consensus) then the ODI page could do with a paragraph on this and the localisation page could do with a section on this report, or something of that quantity. Relisted for the second time, but alas Misplaced Pages seems to have low interest for humanitarian stuff, which ironically is why created this article. lol CT55555 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Move to Localisation (humanitarian organizations). There's nothing in the routine citations above to suggest that the report is notable, but the rather that the underlying practice being discussed is. On the other hand, the content here is relevant to a meaningful and high-profile practice within multiple humanitarian organizations, which meets GNG.--Carwil (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, I'm sure you mean Localisation (humanitarian practice) CT55555 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, didn't realize that was blue link. Thanks! Carwil (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if more input helps
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Added a couple more deletion sorting categories to see if we can get a bit more input. You could also leave notices at relevant WikiProject pages (as long as those notices are neutral pointers, of course). — Rhododendrites \\ 20:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks you, I had hoped someone would do that, I don't know how to do it, and the only WikiProject I know if that may be interested is International Development which seems very stagnant, I once raised an AfD there and got nothing and nobody ever raised one since. I'll think if there are any other places I could seek input from, of course would only do that neutrally. CT55555 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge to Localisation (humanitarian practice). One needs to differentiate between the issues the report covers and the report itself. I do not see WP:NBOOK being met here. To take the Save the Children source, this is an archive listing, it is not a discussion or analysis of the report. The report is being cited by others for its examination of an issue, which is different than being cited for the report's effect. A concrete way to illustrate this difference would be the Beveridge Report; that report is famously notable for its policy and legal effects; indicating that a report is cited by others within the same academic sphere is not enough to indicate the policy and/or legal effects of the report (which would be appropriate criteria in this case). FWIW, as far as I can see, we don't even have a stand-alone article for Einstein's paper on mass-energy equivalence (although we do have one on his proof of the existence of atoms). No doubt this report is useful in establishing the notability of the topic it examines, but there is no clear sourcing that the report itself is notable. I hope the distinction I'm making is clear. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge The content of the report should be discussed in the context of its subject, but the report isn't notable on its own. It's great that it's been cited, but that's not about the report itself. Its findings can be discussed in Localisation (humanitarian practice). Reywas92 01:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge into Localisation (humanitarian practice) and possibly a little at Overseas Development Institute.Gusfriend (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge into Localisation (humanitarian practice). It's a great source, and our readers would benefit from its insights. No evidence it's notable on it own. Femke (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Consensus is that we don't want an article with the scope described by the title. A different question is whether to have an article about Amazon.com's services in Israel; anybody is free to create that and if needed to request undeletion of this content for this purpose. Sandstein 10:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Shipping to Israel

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

Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. Disguised brochure article. More of information note. Unsuitable for wikipedia. scope_creep 11:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge to Amazon (company)#Response to COVID-19 pandemic. Whilst I agree with the nom that this title is not suitable for a standalone article (it certainly does not describe its contents well at all) I disagree with their contention that the well-sourced content does not belong in WP. The article is mostly about Amazon's free shipping policy to Israel, and the complications that said policy faced as a consequence of COVID-19, so the logical thing would be to put it where it belongs. Havradim leaf a message 16:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep: please explain why you moved this article from Amazon shipping to Israel immediately before nominating it for deletion. Your edit summary "Better and more accurate per suggestion talk page" does not appear to be warranted. However, delete or merge – I tagged this for notability three months ago and the problem has not been resolved. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete The content may be relevant but it doesn't deserve its own page. Find an existing page where this can go. On its own it fails Fails WP:NCORP MaskedSinger (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge into Amazon (company). Also the current page name is misleading.Gusfriend (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Agree RemotelyInterested (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Amazon services in Israel. Services as web hosting or archiving are not really shipped to Israel. Do not leave a redirect as the name is highly misleading, as others have pointed out before me. The topic meets WP:ORGCRIT. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Amazon services in Israel: Per Gidonb. Article is good enough to pass WP:ORGCRIT. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 15:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment It is a global enyclopeadia we have here, so if the article was kept it would be expanded to cover the whole world not just Israel. At the moment, the article is no more than an information note. There is no depth to it and while it probably passes WP:ORGCRIT, it fails WP:AUD as it favours one country, one group of people over all others. It was also created by a spammer, a UPE. scope_creep 16:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment. This AFD is crumbling under its total lack of merit. Nominator agrees that the WP:ORGCRIT is met. WP:AUD is another reason to keep, not delete. Just follow the link and read what is written there. gidonb (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It is WP:NOTNEWS, written by spammer and fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep 09:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:ORGCRIT is at the core of WP:NCORP, making this into a moving target and even a bit desperate or at the very least unclear and unsure. As if when throwing at this many things then maybe something would stick. It reinforces my previous observation: This AFD is crumbling under its total lack of merit. gidonb (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment Does anybody else have any reviews on this poor news article? scope_creep 12:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to determine whether a merge or rename is the best outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete misleading title and the opening sentence talks about Amazon. Not sure what this is....Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you aware that nominator has submitted this article for speedy deletion and, after this request was declined, moved it to a weird name, then AfDd it the next minute? gidonb (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Under these circumstances a procedural keep is in order. Then see what can be made of the article, following the rules. Then it can still be discussed. If you do work by the rules you are not supposed to make name changes during AFDs so the name (change) that several people mentioned is very problematic for our discussion. gidonb (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gidonb: If you keep making false allegations like that against me, which is a form of personal attack, it is up to AN with you. You seem to be foaming at the mouth to keep this crap article, which is bit of a puzzlement since it is no more than an information note, two bits of news glued together and non-encyclopedic failing WP:NOTNEWS, and specific to one country. You also seem to trying to WP:BLUDGEON the whole argument, driving away other editors, instead of letting it flow freely, which is another reason to go to AN. scope_creep 11:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything I said is true. People can look this up themselves, as others did before me. I only just found out. Regarding more contributions by other editors: I'm in favor. This should not be about you or me. gidonb (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Purely speaking on timing, not merit as I have not evaluated the content thororoughly: @Gidonb your facts are out of order here. @Scope creep renamed the article prior to initiating the AfD. There's no issue with doing so at all Star Mississippi 14:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Scope creep renamed the article prior to initiating the AfD. Right. That's EXACTLY what I said! I did not say that moving is forbidden. I said that a non-contributor (any) to an article moving it to a weird name, next minute nominating creates a problem as we cannot or should not move it back. Next respondents are going to check the contents versus the title, as happened above. Any initiator of an AfD should give success and failure of an AfD a fair chance. AfDs are about letting the community decide on optimal solutions for the article in a collaborative spirit. Please do not make this more personal than the nominator already did. My comments are purely about the principle. I stand 100% behind my conclusion that, given the circumstances around this AfD, it is best to close in a procedural keep. Let people improve the text and title. Then nominate if still relevant. I do not decide on all that. Others do. gidonb (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You also said you are not supposed to make name changes during AFDs so the name (change) that several people mentioned is very problematic which @Scope creep did not do. That's all I'm saying. I'm not sure which of you is right, or wrong content wise, but accusing one another of doing something you didn't doesn't help a discussion. Star Mississippi 21:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Your quote of me, you are not supposed to make name changes during AFDs so the name (change) that several people mentioned is very problematic, refers to what we should not do AFTER the AfD has started. I stand 100% behind this statement and have proudly repeated it here moving it to a weird name, next minute nominating creates a problem as we cannot or should not move it back. I did not accuse anyone of anything. This is behavior that was assigned to me by someone else and clearly does not apply to me. I noted that this AfD has a problem baked in because of the sequence of events around the nomination: change into a weird title THEN nomination. I analyzed the problem and suggested a constructive solution. No single person can do better than that! gidonb (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Now while I did not accuse anyone of anything, there were several false accusations against me here that are VERY annoying. I'll leave it that for now. gidonb (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I raised my eyebrows at the last-minute change of name, as it might be interpreted as an attempt to compromise the article before a deletion nomination. I asked Scope creep to explain this change but they do not appear to have done so. However, this wrinkle is insufficient reason for a procedural keep, and we should assess the article in the normal way. 'Amazon shipping to Israel' is too narrow a topic for a useful article. We might usefully have an article on Amazon's shipping operations worldwide, or possibly on Amazon's activities in Israel (although we don't have corresponding articles on Amazon's larger markets), but this article is too far from either of these to form a useful starting point. The current text cannot easily be merged into Amazon (company), which does not have geographical sections. None of the other articles in Template:Amazon appear to be a viable merge target, soo I favour delete, as the only remaining outcome. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete The topic is an Amazon service, shipping to Israel, so WP:NCORP applies. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are all entirely based on company announcements with no "Independent Content". I agree with Oaktree's summary too - article is confusing as hell and TNT applies. HighKing 13:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - Strange title and RS doesn't support notabilit as far as I can see. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. There is a complete disjoint between the title and the content. The original title was a bit clearer (and I don't think it should have been renamed prior to nomination!) although that title just makes the non-notability of the topic more obvious. The content seems... weird. Taken at face value it is a scattered set of facts that do not add up to a coherent or notable subject. It seems like we are being invited to join the dots but to what end? Even if I am right about that, I can't see exactly what narrative is being sketched here but I assume it falls foul of WP:SYNTH. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete aside from the name drama, which could be solved editorially, there is still no content that adds up to an encyclopedia article here. Without that, no amount of fixing will address the issue. There were shipping issues to Israel. Maybe this could be covered within BDS Sanctions, but that doesn't even appear to be a fit nor is it a significant enough issue. Star Mississippi 22:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeta (1960 film)

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM. Was deleted via PROD in 2020, but was undeleted in 2021. No additions have been made to the article since that time to help establish notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Severe storm 28 01:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep. We should decide whether to go with Seeta or Seetha as our transliteration throughout, though. I've added some refs. It was the most successful Malayalam language film of its time. Dsp13 (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Per Dsp13, seems to be notable film of the period.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More time to find a better source for highest grossing Malayam film, current one is blogspot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Systemic bias, not a hoax, significance is proved - take your pick. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep per Dsp13 Akshaypatill (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Irreligion in Australia. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Global Atheist Convention

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

Not notable. Only good reference is an article about a lack of interest in the convention, causing it to be cancelled. All other mentions seem to be brief. L32007 (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to "Atheism in Australia" would seem appropriate. If the conference was cancelled by the third time they tried, it wasn't very notable. Oaktree b (talk)

FYI: It was not the third attempt at any conference that was cancelled. It was the third conference that was cancelled. The first two conferences occured. Aoziwe (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to Irreligion in Australia as alternative to deletion (there is no "Atheism in Australia" article). Deus et lex (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Strong keep The Global Atheist Convention is actually three conferences one in 2010, one in 2012, and one cancelled from 2018. I must admit to not understanding at all the basis for this AfD nomination. There is clear evidence of significant coverage, including analysis, in main stream media for all three events? Aoziwe (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The only reliable and notable source on the article is one talking about the conference being cancelled. I was not able to find any significant coverage to improve the references on the page.L32007 (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You might want to look through the results to the searches I have included above. There are sources with significant content about the conferences from very reliable independent organisations such as the ABC News, The Guardian, The Age, etc. Aoziwe (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see discussion of independent sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep. The two conferences that were held had presentations from many important people, who have wikipedia articles. Give it time to be given more sources, or at least redirect as proposed above. --Bduke (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Irreligion in Australia - there is little RS here to establish the notability of this event. Some references quoted are not independent of the event, and the one RS of note, from the Sydney Morning Herald, mentions the event got cancelled... hardly reassuring!!! Happy to change my vote if more RS is found, but at the moment, no. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. And I have no faith that the meeting will be resurrected any time soon.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. because clearly there's still no broad consensus on the distinction between NSPORT and GNG and we can't keep doing this AfD by AfD. I don't think another week is going to bring us any closer to consensus where we're hampered by both accessibility and language. Star Mississippi 17:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Aage Høy-Petersen

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

No indication of notability; no significant coverage was provided or able to be identified. An additional source was available on the Danish Misplaced Pages, but it is neither reliable nor does it include significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete non-medalists do not meet our inclusion criteria, and there is no indication of sourcing that meets GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: Note that while he didn't medal in the 1924 Olympics, he did medal in 1928 - although of course that isn't sufficient to keep in the absence of significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete although he did get a medal in 1928, we need actual sources passing GNG to justify keeping articles, and we do not have that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep. While still cleaning up the last-place finishers and non-finishers of the Olympics, who can be said not to have achieved anything, it's pretty extreme to suddenly start sweeping over the Olympic medalists in the same go. This counteracts the centralized discussion, because the presumption of notability is exceedingly stronger. Granted, GNG is ultimately the core policy but the above challenge that GNG can't be met here is unconvincing. PS. You don't need to ping me to reiterate that you failed to find sources. Geschichte (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- So in fact you admit that we have no sources that fit our inclusion criteria at all, but still want to keep it without sources. What sources have you found that meet GNG? This article has existed on Misplaced Pages for over 14 years. That after that time we should keep an article with no GNG passing sources just because they might show up in the future seems a truly odd argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  - I do admit I haven't checked, because I don't have access to a Danish newspaper archive, nor the time to do every WP:BEFORE task that others have not done. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    - We cannot keep an article just because we think there might be sources, Verifiability means we must have the sources to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
      - Which parts of the article cannot be verified? Geschichte (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
        Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a sports database. Articles are to be based on signigicant coverage, not bare entries in tables.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. 14 years is more than enough time for someone to have found GNG sources. JoelleJay (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear whether Danish sources have been searched for.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment - digitised Danish newspapers are freely available after 100 years, so up to 1922. After that, access is apparently restricted to academic researchers located in Denmark: see here, here and here. So accessing coverage for 1924 and 1928 would not be straightforward. Ingratis (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ingratis What is the coverage of pre-1922 Olympic medallists in Danish newspapers? JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. Ingratis (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think if the presumption of notability rests on the presumption that Danish newspapers gave SIGCOV to Danish Olympic sailors, the latter ought to be demonstrated first. Otherwise we'd be stuck holding on to a microstub for another 2 to 6 years until sources are available that may not even have sufficient coverage for GNG anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It's equally a presumption that there is no information, whatever earlier newspapers may or may not contain. There is NO time limit and Misplaced Pages is NOT pressed for space - I see no problem in waiting, especially since this is not just an Olympic competitor but an Olympic medallist, and not in a team event either. Ingratis (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre was a team event - he was one of three crewmembers, in addition to the helmsman. And while there is WP:NODEADLINE, there is also no deadline for us to have a deadline - would you be willing to compromise on a soft-deletion (turn into a redirect), and if sources are found in six years time when 1928 is publicly available the article can be easily restored? BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

My mistake re team! Because this is a medal winner, whether in a very small team or on his own, as I wrote below I would rather keep until it's possible to search more meaningfully for sources, which are likely, if they exist, to be in contemporary Danish newspapers, although not excluding the possibility of others. Until such a search can be made the presumption of notability remains, and as Geschichte has already said, it's a very strong presumption for a medal winner. I agree that even in 2028, should we reach it, there is no fixed deadline for such a search. Redirecting rather than deletion is surely in any case the default for Olympic stubs. Ingratis (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There has never been a proper determination of whether Olympic medallists in particular sports in particular eras receive the requisite coverage in their home countries to meet GNG. It has always been presumed based on the amount of coverage they get now. Because this presumption has not been validated, and because NSPORT says if an SNG but not GNG is met For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics, the onus is on keep !voters to demonstrate why there is very strong reason to believe SIGCOV exists in these Danish newspapers. It is not enough to assert WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. JoelleJay (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect, to Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre, if this article is not kept - WP:ATD. But given the time restriction on Danish sources above, I think it should be kept until they have become available. I have to say, echoing Geschichte, that I'm surprised (and not in a good way) to see an article on an Olympic medallist nominated for deletion. Clearly there was no real point whatsoever to the interminable NOLY RfC. Ingratis (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep, per winning a medal at the Olympics, meets NOLY. And I'm sure he would probably meet GNG as well if we were able to access Danish newspapers from the period he competed in. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- You cannot presume GNG based on sources you cannot describe and just pull out of thin air. GNG is met by finding actual sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If the sources that likely have coverage of him will not be available for a few years, then I believe GNG can be presumed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No, that is backwards. If the sources will not be available for a few years, we should wait a few years to create the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep despite what is written above it appears the subject does meet the criteria at WP:NOLY. NemesisAT (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- All sports SNGs still require the subject to meet GNG, and no one has presented even one source that would show meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of Delhi cricketers. Liz 05:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Mohit Sharma (Delhi cricketer)

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

Fails to meet WP:NCRICKET. Fade258 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep with 20 matches, but redirect if nothing can be found on this guy, despite playing 20 matches for Delhi, then redirect to List of Delhi cricketers, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Lugnuts 07:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep in view of their 20 appearances across all three major formats, there has to be some coverage in Hindi sources. Might be worth pinging WT:IN. StickyWicket (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Good idea - will do. And I've updated my comment. Lugnuts 14:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete As Lugnuts knows the sports inclusion criteria require passing GNG. We have no sources here that show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Delhi cricketers A reasonable career of 9 FC, 7 LA and 7 T20 matches, but fails the updated cricket guidelines. GNG is very difficult to gauge due to the more famous cricketer of the same name and nationality. There may be sourcing in Hindu or Delhi related sources, but given his career and the difficulty we've had in finding sources for similar Indian/Asian players, I'm happy with redirect here as a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Delhi cricketers I couldn’t find any source which would indicate that he passes GNG as most news articles are about the other Mohit Sharma. He has played a considerable amount of matches so it should probably be redirected. Hamza Ali Shah 18:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete As this article is really really about a non-notable player. Thousands of cricketers like these can be found in our country at the moment. Actually, I first tried to propose it for deletion but failed due to some error during the nomination process. Anyway, this page should be deleted and may be, may be Redirected to List of Delhi cricketers -Michri michri (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Delhi cricketers per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Delhi cricketers per above; lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to justify a standalone article. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation

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

I found no significant coverage. Non-notable fictional wrestling federation. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete because it serves no guarantee to be kept here since I highly doubt it would pass WP:GNG. I tried to find information outside of here, there probably would be no information on the subject. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. This article about a fictional entity is presented almost entirely from an in-universe perspective, contrary to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Only the first sentence and part of the infobox contain any real-world perspective. Every source cited is a comic book, except for CBR - the World's Top Destination for Comic, Movie & TV news which is a broken link, and UCWF at MarvelDirectory.com which is a "404 Not Found" link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd note that MOS:REALWORLD applies mostly to writing style and is not, in itself something that can be used as a deletion criteria. Artw (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Marvelcruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Article doesn't establish notability. Avilich (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Longstanding fixture of the Marvel universe that has spanned across multiple prominent storylines, particularly in Mark Gruenwald's Capatin America run, and elements of which have been touched on by the MCU (in particular the The Falcon and the Winter Soldier series). Would agree the in universe cites could do with bolstering/swapping out with cites from other sources, which I have made a start on. Artw (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment The article after the minor changes described above is still effectively the same: some of the refs have been replaced, with no actual change in the actual or potential content that complies with MOS:REALWORLD, as Metropolitan90 has pointed out. Avilich (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Eh, that sounds a bit like sour grapes to me. At any rate the argument that the UCWF isn't covered anywhere outside of the comics, which is a big part of the deletion rationale, is pretty busted. Artw (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea? I said there is "no significant coverage" and not "there is no coverage anywhere outside of the comics". SL93 (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Duntocher Hibernian F.C.

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT - even fails the non-binding WP:FOOTBALL convention about playing in the national Cup, having never done so Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 00:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 00:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep, I have added a few refs which hopefully boost the case for WP:GNG pass. As well as playing in the Junior Cup final (covered in The Herald as per ref and probably elsewhere), the club won the Central Junior Football League twice in the 1950s so were among the top non-league clubs of that period. Yes they never played in the senior Scottish Cup, but that wasn't a possibility for any Junior clubs until the 21st century, instead it was a parallel 'little brother' organisation. The more recent refs I added were related to the ground - these confirm that the current team with the name is a very low-level amateur outfit, but there is still sufficient interest in a club that faded out 40 years ago to wish to restart it with the same name, and for the local newspaper to want to report on that. To call that SIGCOV would be pushing it, but COV certainly. I also linked to the Players category for the club which has 25 entries including a few internationals, so they had a decent record of producing professionals as well as bumbling along in the junior bubble. Would be a disappointing precedent for pre-Internet clubs if this were deleted, given their small but clear part in the history of Scottish football. Crowsus (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Just because it was pre-internet doesn't mean it is not notable. I think coverage is sufficient enough, and as said above, the club itself was a clear part of Scottish football. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep, it is pre-internet but it was a significant junior side back in the day.--Mvqr (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: a club can not fail WP:NSPORT per WP:NTEAM. Geschichte (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep - other than the nomination being flawed in saying the club fails NSPORT (which does not even apply, as it refers to biographies only - shows the amount of care the nominator has put in!) GNG is met per Crowsus. Giant Snowman 22:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep - nomination is flawed, as it doesn't fail NSPORTS. Also, I'm finding over 300 hits in the British Newspaper Archive between 1894 and 1966. Perhaps someone with access could find some GNG references. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep As per comments above by others, this club meets WP:NSPORTS. Caphadouk (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
'Keep- Junior football was historically of strong interest in Scotland (many junior teams had bigger support than some of the smaller senior teams) and attracted substantial coverage. Duntocher Hibernian were at one time a major junior club. I would also concur that it is significant that club produced players that went on to make an impact in the senior game. Crowsus work has also improved the article and I would concur with the other points raised in favour of keep. Dunarc (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Green (academic)

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

Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete. These two books are extremely frequently cited and would both easily pass notability guidelines for books, but they're both co-authored (by notable academics we have articles on), so they don't make as solid a WP:NAUTHOR pass as a pair of monographs would. I might be inclined to argue for a keep if he were still in academia, but he left the field ten years ago: so what we're looking at right now is already basically the fullest possible version of this article, and it's almost entirely sentences about the books - sentences that already exist on his co-authors' wikipedia articles. We'd be better off having articles on the two books. -- asilvering (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for either academics or writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete agree with nom--and Asilvering. Subject doesn't meet GNG in his own right. Cabrils (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete subject does not seem to be notable in own right. While the subject is involved in two books which seem to be notable in their own rights, N is not inherited. AtD would be to redirect to one of the books is it had an article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Flimsy RS here. As noted, the books which form a large part of the RS are co-authored. Not really featured in the articles, and other references are not RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)