Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 3: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:19, 10 February 2022 editCoffee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,540 edits Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George Lawton (canoeist) (XFDcloser)← Previous edit Revision as of 21:24, 10 February 2022 edit undoCoffee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,540 edits Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sakis Arseniou (XFDcloser)Next edit →
Line 28: Line 28:
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Porter Van Zandt}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Porter Van Zandt}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anupam Mittal (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted--> {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anupam Mittal (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sakis Arseniou}} <!-- {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sakis Arseniou}} -->
<!-- {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George Lawton (canoeist)}} --> <!-- {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George Lawton (canoeist)}} -->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2021 Gold Derby Music Awards}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2021 Gold Derby Music Awards}}

Revision as of 21:24, 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 02 February 04 >
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 merge to BirdLife Australia#Awards. Star Mississippi 18:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

John Hobbs Medal

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

Fails WP:GNG. 1 hit in gnews, nothing in trove.nla.gov.au other coverage merely confirms people won the award. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  • KeepOppose. The article is essentially a list of mostly notable people who share the award because of their notable achievements. It provides useful information by bringing them together as a group. Maias (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Maias. I have taken the liberty and "standardised" your !vote. Aoziwe (talk) 10:09, 4 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus and I don't see a fourth relist providing one. Star Mississippi 00:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Salvador Alanís

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

In October it was decided that only Olympic medalists are default notable, others need substantial coverage. Alanis lacks substantial coverage. The one source is the deep of super comprehensive source that does not add towards passing GNG. My search for sources came up with a few references to other people named Salvador Alanis but no additional sources on this person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

*keep represented multi-international sporting events and won... trusted source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranshu28 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC) sock strike JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:NATH establishes a presumption of notability, but per WP:NSPORTS athletes are still required to meet WP:GNG, and reviewing the sources at the article this athlete does not meet that requirement. Specifically, they appear to lack any significant coverage, with the closest those references come being with the sentence Salvador Alanís Duque, who with a time of 13.28 meters ranked 15th at the Los Angeles 32 Olympics, was the first to make history for Mexico in El Sol de Mexico and the sentence Mexico was represented in this event through Salvador Alanís Duque with a mark of 13.28 meters to occupy the 15th place, during the Olympic Games of Los Angeles 1932 in ESTO. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Lugnuts. Medallist in his respective sporting field, regardless of how well they performed at the Olympics itself, which appears to be the core argument of this AfD nom. Article itself is reasonably sourced for its length, but ofc can be built up further in the future. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. No SIGCOV sources have been uncovered, which overrides any arguments of meeting a subguideline of NSPORT since NSPORT itself requires GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, the article is now a strong stub and it's pretty obvious that the subject had notability in Mexico. The date of death being unknown is a major drawback. Geschichte (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.esto.futbol/183482-tras-84-anos-mexico-con-saltador-triple/ Yes Yes No "Mexico was represented in this test by Salvador Alanís Duque with a mark of 13.28 meters to occupy the 15th place, during the 1932 Los Angeles Olympic Games." ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20200418104435/https://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/al/salvador-alanis-1.html Yes Yes No stats database ✘ No
https://www.elsoldemexico.com.mx/deportes/alberto-alvarez-consigue-un-historico-noveno-lugar-en-salto-triple-189567.html Yes Yes No "Salvador Alanís Duque,quien con una marca de 13.28 metros ocupó el lugar 15 en losOlímpicos de Los Ángeles 32, fue el primero en hacer historiapara México." ✘ No
https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/73458 Yes Yes No stats database ✘ No
http://www.athleticsnacac.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/CAC-Games-III-Athletics-Results-San-Salvador-ESA-17-21MAR1935.pdf No Original event results reported by the event itself Yes No Purely stats ✘ No
https://library.olympics.com/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/35283/mexico-68-news-bulletin-organizing-committee-of-the-games-of-the-xix-olympiad?_lg=en-GB No Bulletin from a committee he was VP of Yes can't access the page ✘ No
http://www.codeme.com.mx/descargas/pdf_historia/08_quintadecada.pdf Not clear what relationship the org has with Alanís Yes No Mentioned in two places as the "technical director of the CDM" ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
JoelleJay (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more discussion on the source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  • leaning towards keep. GNG is not a pillar of Misplaced Pages, it only gives some "presumption of notability" (like SNGs) and has its own faults: while it could be an almost perfect notability assessment tool for current/contemporary subjects as well as for anglophone subjects which can benefit from dozens of services like newspaper.com, the lack of online coverage for a Mexican athlete of the 1930s is all but surprising. The subject clearly passes WP:NATH, and while in its original version there was very little to save in its current form the entry is perfectly suitable for an encyclopedia. He was described by El Sol de México as someone who in his discipline "made history for Mexico", something which I consider a sufficient claim of notability, more than the dozens(hundreds) of influencers/youtubers who have a WP entry for barely passing the GNG bar through 2 or 3 articles in some obscure websites. Cavarrone 07:36, 18 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 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. After a thorough discussion of available sources, rough consensus is that this mythological figure is not verifiable through reliable sources. Sandstein 13:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Lona (mythology)

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

The Hawaiian dictionaries do not mention a goddess under lona (cf. Pukui/Elbert: ; Andrews: , ; Parker: , ). The standard references for Hawaiian mythology refer to Hina and do not mention any Lona (cf. Beckwith and Westervelt). Jan Knappert, the Dutch author of the referenced Pacific mythology: an encyclopedia of myth and legend published about African and Asian mythology preferably and nothing in any Polynesian language. Therefore the references are not trustworthy enough. ThT (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not buying the argument that we should delete an article on the basis that it is not mentioned by certain sources. To start off with, not being in dictionaries is fairly meaningless when we are talking about a minor diety rather than a word. The link to the Westervelt source is in a work titled Legends of Maui: and His Mother Hina. Since our article makes no claim that Lona was Maui's mother (or even mention him at all) there is no obvious reason why we should expect to see her in there. That just leaves Lona's omission from Martha Beckwith's rather old (1940) work as the evidence that "Lona" is an error. Against that there is the Knappert source in the article. Belittling Jan Knappert because he mostly published about Africa doesn't wash. He is obviously a skilled linguist with Hawiian included in his multiple degrees and his relevant work here is reliably published by Harper-Collins. If that was the only place Lona was mentioned there would be a good argument here, but it isn't. I'm seeing Lona in multiple sources. This book for instance mentions her – published by Springer who in other cicumstances their reliability would not be questioned. If a source is unearthed that positively asserts this is an error then I might reconsider, but not on the curent evidence. SpinningSpark 17:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for referring to the dubious citation Beckwith, pp. 214-25 which seems to verify the statement It is likely that Lona is another name for the Moon goddess Hina. The chapter Hina Myths in Beckwith's Hawaiian mythology (pp. 214-225) doesn't mention the name Lona at all, however this would be one of the important sources to check and the page numbers as well as Hina point to the work of Martha Beckwith:
    Beckwith, Martha W.: Hawaiian Mythology. Reprinted in Honolulu (Univ. of Hawaii Press), 1996.
    In the introduction Katharine Luomala, professor of Anthropology, wrote in 1969: it was the first, and is still the only, scholarly work which charts a pathway through the hundreds of books and articles, many of them obscure and scarce, and through the little-known manuscripts that record the orally transmitted myths, legends, traditions, folktales, and romances of the Hawaiian people. (p. VII) The Univ. of Hawaii Press reprinted the book again in 1996.
    The citation in Myths, Symbols and Legends of Solar System Bodies (by Rachel Alexander, ISBN 9781461470670) cannot be verified, because only the fragment of the simple statement Lona in Hawaiian mythology was a is visible. However this book is an amateur astronomer’s guide to the mythology and symbolism associated with the celestial bodies in the Solar System, and even includes some of the legendary tales of people who had or have a connection with these objects. Therefore it is not a reliable source for Hawaiian mythology.
    Meanwhile I checked an important primary source as well: David Kalakaua. The Legends and Myths of Hawaii: The Fables and Folk-Lore of a Strange People. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, 1999. Again, there's no mention of any Lona
    WP:WHYCITE requires that the information given is supported by reliable source. Because Lona is not mentioned in any of the scholarly sources about Hawaiian mythology reliable sources are still needed.
    Moreover WP:SIGCOV requires significant coverage, which is more than a trivial mention. Therefore trivial mentions in books or other sources are not sufficient for notability.
    Best, --ThT (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    The claim that a citation cannot be verified because you personally cannot read it is patently untrue. The book exists. The book exists in libraries. The book exists in libraries that anyone can go in to read it. So in theory anyone can verify it, and in practice one person at least (me) has read the entire entry. I accessed it online fine, your lack of computer skills is entirely your own problem, not Misplaced Pages's. Also, I never claimed the coverage in that book was significant (although it is certainly more than a passing mention), and Knappert's coverage is certainly significant.SpinningSpark 20:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
    For the record, the relevant passage in Myths, Symbols and Legends of Solar System Bodies reads:"Other Moon deities are female personifications of the Moon. Lona in Hawaiian mythology was a Moon goddess who, perhaps unwisely, fell passionately in love with a man by the name of Aikanaka. They lived happily ever after, at least for many years. They were finally separated by the death of the mortal. This is quite unusual for a goddess."I wouldn't consider this a reliable source for our purposes. There are no sources cited, and the author is an English teacher, not an expert in Hawaiian folklore. She very probably got this information from Misplaced Pages in the first place. You might be surprised how often that happens, even in books from normally-trustworthy publishers. Dan from A.P. (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Dan from A.P. (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
    Just to clarify my vote: I agree that the Knappert source is reliable, but the GNG calls for sources, plural. I discount the Rachel Alexander book discussed above, and I'm not prepared to AGF on the Ramesh Chopra source cited in the article, given the previous issues with failed verification. So I'm still only seeing one useable source. Dan from A.P. (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete ON balance, there seems to be some issues with the sources. I would note, its not necessarily up to us to decide with a source is an RS or not - that should really be decided by the RS noticeboard. If the noticeboard validates that source, then it may well stay in and substantiate the content. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I could verify the Knappert source and add the page number. And it is a reliable source from a reliable author, as Spinningspark already mentioned, and I can't see any evidence to the contrary. Just because something is not mentioned in a particular source can hardly be considered deletion criteria, as the nom suggests. Ciridae (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if we can get less sniping about computer skills and more consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I think that the problem here is that Beckwith et al. are talking about the Ai-kanaka and Hina from Hawaiian mythology, which is a very different story to what Knappert relates. Moreover, Knappert specificially says "north Polynesian" not "Hawaiian" as xe does in other entries. These are two different myths, with the one related by Beckwith having nothing to do with a man being carried off to a "White Kingdom". Knappert has the Beckwith one in xyr entry for "Mahina" on page 174, and labels that one "Hawaiian". And Knappert's entry for "Ai-kanaka" just points to both of those.

    The problem here is that we have exactly one source, discounting the 21st century fantasy novel than almost quotes Knappert verbatim, for the "north Polynesian" mythical person; compounded by the fact that the one source devotes a mere three sentences to this subject. Worse, it's an Aquarian Press source. (You've all got the 1995 Diamond reprint, the original 1992 publisher was Aquarian.) Let's just say that Aquarian Press, publisher of Douglas Baker's 1977 Practical Techniques of Astral Projection and Rodney Davies' 1987 The ESP Workbook: How to Awaken and Use Your Psychic Powers, is not exactly academically rigorous. Aquarian got Knappert to do three "Aquarian guides" to "African", "Indian", and "Pacific" mythology over the space of as many years, and none of them are exactly scholarly in format. (Notice that when Knappert actually wrote in xyr field of expertise, about Swahili, xe went to Heinemann Educational Books and BRILL.)

    For what it's worth, my educated guess is that Alexander almost certainly got this information from Knappert's book, but changed "Polynesian" to "Hawaiian", even though Knappert draws this distinction between the two Ai-kanaka myths. Aquarian Press was in Wellingborough, according to a quick Google Books search, and Alexander's book-jacket blurb says that xe grew up in Nottingham, so Aquarian Press books were probably around. Ironically, Alexander's publisher, Springer Science+Business Media, has a far better reputation than Knappert's publisher does.

    But that does mean that we really don't have a good source for either this or the major parts of Aikanaka (mythology) which are also based upon Knappert's Aquarian Press book.

    This is only sourceable to a minor mention in one exceedingly dodgy Aquarian Press book. Delete.

    Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete -- With thanks to ThT and Uncle G for their exhaustive analysis of this, I agree that the sourcing, based on their research, is not sufficient to back up this article. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:57, 21 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Faron Young#Discography. ✗plicit 23:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The All-Time Great Hits of Faron Young

The All-Time Great Hits of Faron Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no independent references other than the AllMusic review already cited, so it doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUM. The helper5667 (talk) 23:42, 3 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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Faraaz Kazi

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

Most of the sources are only interviews or self written pieces which should not be independent sources. It is also written like a complete advertisement. Previous discussion in 2013. I don't see pages created these days allowed with such minimal coverage. Glassesgalore123 (talk) 22:23, 3 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 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) 08:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Lifi Publications

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

I feel that this company doesn't have sufficient coverage for Misplaced Pages company guidelines. Glassesgalore123 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete: An article setting out the wares of a division of a firm which has no article in itself. This division appears to solicit authors' manuscripts: " a new venture by of DK Agencies in which we get your fiction novels published for the world to read" . Passing mentions can be found in PR for publishing events, but not the detailed coverage of this firm/imprint itself; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 20:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Could only find passing mentions in coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete agree that it fails WP:CORP. Chelokabob (talk) 23:34, 14 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Not a ton of participation, but nom is on board as well. Star Mississippi 02:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The Book of Common Worship of 1906

The Book of Common Worship of 1906 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article on topic covered by the more expansive article Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Would not be opposed to a merge but since all information is unsourced I feel inclined towards a speedy deletion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:40, 5 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect , as indicated in the nom. Doing so after this close given the differing targets Star Mississippi 02:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sleepy Hollow (Mars)

Also including: Larry's Lookout



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

Neither of these are notable Martian geographic features. According to the one research paper that discusses it Sleepy Hollow likely represents a degraded impact crater with an approximate diameter of 17 metres. For comparison, there are 90 million craters on mars over 25 metres in diameter . The paper doesn't really substantiate that the hollow is itself notable, the information is better included in a hypothetical article on Martian impact cratering. Sleepy Hollow is mentioned in the Spirit (rover) article and can be redirected there. Larry's Lookout is discussed in research papers as part of the broader topic of Husband Hill of which it is part, and should probably be redirected there, as it lacks any separate notability. Husband Hill could maybe be merged into Columbia Hills (Mars), but that's outside the scope of this AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 22:19, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Brittany Evans

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

I don't think Ms. Evans's beauty contest wins meet the "well-known and significant award or honor" criterion of WP:ANYBIO. She hosted one episode of the television show Wild On!, and had a minor role in the film Deep in the Valley. I looked for sources and found two interviews , plus some passing mentions and trivial coverage. Cheers, gnu57 20:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 22:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think generally, she appears to have achieved notability through an array of high profile media events. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Passing mentions and trivial coverage do not count towards WP:NBIO because they are not significant coverage. Interviews are primary sources and not independent from the author, so they can't count towards NBIO either. Attending "high profile media events" does not imply inherent notability. Pilaz (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: Oh my god. I can't believe this is even being considered as a Keep. According to WP:ENT, for her to be a notable enough person, she would have had to have:
1. had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
2. made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
So, how would she qualify exactly? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:22, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Liturgical books of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Liz 06:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Book of Common Worship of 1946

The Book of Common Worship of 1946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This unsourced article is already covered by the more expansive article Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more input would help to determine whether the content merits merging
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 18 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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Rohit Jawa

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

Non-notable individual. Arrested for a single offense that is not particularly noteworthy. Nothing else of note. RegentsPark (comment) 22:03, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Olduvai theory

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

Clearly a fringe theory. The sources shake out as so: 1) things Duncan published himself, 2) unreliable blogs and websites, 3) passing citations of energy consumption in certain countries and unit conversions (which raises WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS questions), 4) the fairly nice IEEE Spectrum article, which mentions Duncan and the Olduvai theory only in passing. Additional links in "Further Reading" are either passing or mention the theory only in combination with the rest of peak oil. I suppose a merge to peak oil might be an option, but this has so many bad smells that I'd rather just delete it. Apocheir (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - so much of the sources reference back to Duncan himself that what is left is wholly inadequate to support notability. A redirect would suffice. As it stands it fails WP:GNG.  Velella    15:15, 12 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to RC Bafoussam. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Stade Municipal de Bamendzi

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

Lack of Notability

Hello.

I believe this article, which has suffered from a lack of sources since 2009, does not meet WP:N, and I have been unable to find any real reliable sources other than autogenerated site data like directions applications and basic geographic data. There are a few news articles in French that mention it in passing, but no real info about the place itself.

Considering how obscure this place is, my inability to find a single reliable source, and the small size of the stadium. Honestly, I have local high school auditoriums and gyms that can fit more people than the article says the stadium can.

If you have a reason to object or a reliable source you found, let me know.

EytanMelech (talk) 20:53, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Porter Van Zandt

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

Biography of a stage actor and theatre manager, whose attempted notability claims are referenced entirely to primary sources rather than reliable or notability-building sources. As always, notability in Misplaced Pages isn't established just by using primary sources to verify facts, and instead requires media coverage to externally validate the significance of said facts -- but the sources here are IMDB, other IMDB-like directories, his paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds and genealogical documents, with not even one piece of WP:GNG-worthy journalistic coverage about his work in a newspaper, magazine or book shown at all.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 3 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 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 and salt. However it's a valid search term, so what I will salt is the post-delete redirect. Star Mississippi 02:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Anupam Mittal

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

Misplaced Pages is not WP:NOTCV. In past, multiple attempts has been made to move this entity into the main article namespace. High possibility of WP:COI/WP:UPE. It's time for WP:SALT. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @K.e.coffman: for an assessment (not for vote) as he had once nominated this entity for an AfD in 2017. -Hatchens (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: my assessment remains the same: "An advertorially toned BLP on an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to online directories, passing metions, WP:SPIP or other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created and edited by a number of blocked socks; sample: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jiteshdugar."
In this case, the article was created by Special:Contributions/Patroong with few other contributions outside the topic. So UPE is likely. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Both of the films were financed by him, he didnt had a lead role in Flavors (film), he had an appearance with other actors in the movie. One appearance in a movie, fails WP:Actor. If he can have a Misplaced Pages page, invite everyone who has some money and appeared on any show as a judge. 27.100.15.30 (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 Comment:@27.100.15.30: He is not an actor. He is an entrepreneur. 卂卄卩talk 03:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Favonian (talk) 20:44, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 03:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

2021 Gold Derby Music Awards

2021 Gold Derby Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of coverage for these awards in reliable sources; the only coverage I've found is at the website itself and at IMDb (not a reliable source or indicative of notability). Worth noting that the similar page Gold Derby Awards was deleted in 2020 (it has since been recreated as a redirect). RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: The IMDb links were for the film awards presented by Gold Derby, not the music awards. Doesn't make much of a difference, but I've struck it accordingly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:40, 3 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 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. Eddie891 Work 19:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dianne Martinez

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

WP:BLP of a local politician not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that she's a city councillor and former mayor of a small municipality with a population of just 12K, but people at the local level of office don't get automatic notability freebies just for existing as politicians: at this level of office, the notability test is the ability to write a substantive and well-sourced article that establishes a reason to treat them as much more nationally or internationally significant than the norm for that level of significance.
But the references here aren't accomplishing that: four of the seven are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (the self-published websites of organizations she's been directly affiliated with, a Q&A "meet your city council candidates" interview in a community hyperlocal in which she's talking about herself in the first person), and even the three real media hits aren't really about her in any non-trivial way: one briefly namechecks her existence as a Filipina politician, one briefly quotes her giving soundbite on an issue, and one just tangentially verifies a fact about city policy while completely failing to name Dianne Martinez as having any connection to it at all, which means none of them count as WP:GNG-building coverage either.
In addition, "first member of a minority group to do this not otherwise notable thing in her own city" is still not an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt her from having to be the subject of GNG-worthy coverage about her (as opposed to mentioning her name in the process of being about something else).
There's just nothing stated here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

ANN4HO

ANN4HO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passage of 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 is the reception of media coverage which verifies that they've accomplished something that would pass a notability criterion in WP:NMUSIC — but the notability claim on offer here is that she exists as a musician, and the references are entirely to primary source content on the self-published event calendars of venues (entirely in her own hometown) where she's performed, with absolutely no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in real media to verify that she's accomplished anything that would get her into an encyclopedia.
Also, this was moved from draftspace by its own creator, without any evidence that it was ever actually submitted for a proper WP:AFC review, but the state of the article doesn't suggest a compelling reason to just move it back into draftspace for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I've moved it back. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and it does not appear one is forthcoming with two relists generating zero incremental input. No prejudice against a speedy renom if you believe it would get traction. Star Mississippi 03:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Zobeda Khanom Chowdhury

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

The subject has no reason to be notable and sources do not prove otherwise. Notability is not inherited from her son. Apart from a single source (M. R. Mahbub) we have no significant coverage of the subject even in Bengali. If Mahbub's claim that she was among the first Muslim women to join politics in Bangladesh were true (it isn't), such a scarcity of sources is not to be expected: Language Movement has attracted attention of thousands of scholars in S. Asia across the last few decades. Anyways, a single source and some name-drops cannot guarantee passage of WP:N. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. @AleatoryPonderings: I had edited an article drafted by TrangaBellam with good faith a couple of hours ago but they were not content with these edits and thus responded by criticising a number of my recent article translations from Bengali to English. This is very inappropriate behaviour. SalamAlayka (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm baffled by the nominator's WP:NOTINHERITED argument. The article text only mentions her son briefly and he doesn't even have his own article. There's no obvious attempt to coatrack notability here. pburka (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    One of the many arguments.
    Overall, there were thousands of ML Women Cells each having their Muslim women office bearers, who partook in routine party bureaucracy and outreach including submitting memorandum etc and dissenting with higher ups. None of this is an exception including criticism by press. The acts engaged in by our subject do not seem significant enough to merit anything more than a footnote in the annals of Language Movement. There were many women with far-significant contributions.
    And a profile over a single book by a single scholar arguing the subject to be some kind of revolutionary woman (minus the evidence) is not sufficient to pass notability guidelines either. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment The article says her son died in 1952 but according to this Obituary he died in 2008. Or is this a different son?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC) *Keep per this source.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutal- It is written by the same author, M. R. Mahbub.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: a source analysis table would be really helpful here. The article makes claims about her notability that look good on the face of it, but I don't know if the groups she's associated with are notable either, and the nominator telling us they're "subjective claims" doesn't help the rest of us understand why. I can't read Bengali so I can't put one together effectively. I am concerned with the tone of the article, though, which doesn't strike me as WP:NPOV. (And what does "indecent" mean, anyway?) And I'm not sure what's going on in the "Political Activism" section. This looks like it's mostly about people who are not the article subject? I think this might be what the nominator's WP:NOTINHERITED argument might have been aiming at, though I agree with pburka that there's no apparent attempt to coatrack notability using her son. -- asilvering (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Might need a subtle rewrite, but is notable.103.109.56.38 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving time for multiple WP:GNG passing sources to be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:21, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Vishnu Shyam

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

Non notable musical artist, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Lacks of significant coverage which are independent of the subject. We discourage for self published resources on Misplaced Pages. DMySon (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The three references you provided above are from same news and it is only a passing mention. Unable to satisfy notability of the topic. DMySon (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
My mentioned sources are WP:SEC, hence these are coverage. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 03:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 9 Horses. Star Mississippi 03:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Adhyâropa Records

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

This record label exists, though it mainly publishes people associated with it, but there is no reliable coverage of any depth of the company. Mvqr (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:19, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Consensus is clear that further incubation would be helpful. Star Mississippi 03:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Nanthida Rakwong

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

As raised on the talk page, and despite the author's response there and User:Sj accepting it at AfC, none of the references cited in the article, nor any that I could identify, are third-party sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. The Times video is entirely presented by the subject, the few news pieces that mention her by name are only in passing, and the rest are about the organisation's activities and don't directly concern the subject. While her work may be admirable (depending on one's political views), the WP:GNG does not appear to be met. Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC) – 02:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notability is established by multiple third-party sources with significant in-depth coverage. One of the key references mentioned already is an in-depth video interview of the subject by The Times , which is one of the UK's (and the world's) oldest and largest newspapers that goes through very strict media and journalistic editing criteria. The videos on The Times youtube channel are about leading figures in UK and world politics, current affairs and entertainment, and the subject, Nanthida Rakwong, has been assigned an entire feature video. It is also evident from watching the video that it is produced, presented and distributed by The Times on their official youtube channel. Another third-party source with in-depth coverage, in the references already, is a feature interview of the subject and a co-worker by The News Lens , which also describes the work in detail. Other news sources that name the subject do so with significant weight, including the interview section from Apple Daily, which the source reproduced both in video and in text . As a note of clarification, the subject's work is notable and relevant in the fields of international human rights and justice, not only politics. It is also important to be aware that the major media outlets within Thailand are state- and military-controlled, thus go through heavy censorship when it comes to the topics of human rights and the monarchy. Additional context about this within Misplaced Pages can be found here Lèse-majesté in Thailand and here Censorship in Thailand. Recently, the body that regulates the Thai media "advised" journalists not to cover anything regarding criticism of the monarchy (incl. the demands to repel the lese majeste laws). All this makes it very hard for even the most notable critics of the monarchy to be more than "mentioned only in passing" in Thai sources. Please consider this as a reason to give more weight to the international references that do go in-depth. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • While The Times is generally a reliable source and it featuring a video of her does indicate some degree of media interest, the video only features her speaking for herself, so it cannot be considered independent of the subject, a requirement of the GNG. The same likely applies for the other sources used in the article, though I don't read Chinese so I can't say for certain regarding sources in the language. Censorship or not, Misplaced Pages's guidelines depend on the existence of reliable sources, so if it is indeed an issue it might be an unfortunate situation, but making an exception based on such claims wouldn't be in line with Misplaced Pages policy. In any case, local sources are not a requirement, and international sources would be fine on their own if they report on the subject in an independent manner. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
      • The Times videos are produced and edited by The Times. According to GNG Misplaced Pages:Notability#General_notability_guideline, Independent of the subject "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" - this is clearly not produced by the subject. Moreover, The Times follows the press editors code of practice ; report subjects are thoroughly cross-examined by the journalist, as is evident here. The other articles, such as the Chinese ones, have an author or editor named, which also makes them independent of the subject. Misplaced Pages does have advice for censorship contexts such as Venezuela Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources, where state sources are unreliable, and therefore alternative sources are recommended. Similar considerations could be made for Thailand which is in the same category as Venezuela for press freedom (bad) according to Reporters Without Borders - in particular for content related to the most censored topics such as republicanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaiFactChecker (talk • contribs) 00:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I guess that's one possible interpretation of the guideline, but I don't think I've seen it regarded as accepted argument at AfD discussions. I'm open to it if others share the position. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
          • The main point here is right from the wording of the guideline itself, i.e. that independent of the subject means "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", and this is work produced by The Times, not the subject. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment There is enough detail to make an argument for N. I don't think the of the subject's work is relevant, but the relative difficulty of finding national sources in censored contexts is. Perhaps: a notability banner to encourage adding more evidence + detail (e.g.: who were the candidates mentioned? what came of the lawsuits + recent work / studies?), and a more detailed discussion on the talk page over a few months, would be a better place and tempo for this discussion than AfD. – SJ + 17:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It's not censored context issue. Her fellow (like Arnon Nampa) got high news coverage with over 100k hits and those are quality hits with national newspaper, leading news sites. She is just not notable among her peers. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Arnon Nampa and the subject are not "fellows"/"peers": Arnon Nampa is pro-monarchy and wants to reform it, not abolish it - that is very different from Nanthida Rakwong who calls for abolishing the Thai monarchy and changing it into a republic (sources in article). Reform and abolition are treated differently in Thailand, although since a ruling in November 2021, Thai law was changed to consider reform as treason, too . A more recent warning from Thailand's media regulator was that "the act of reporting in and of itself could be interpreted as an attempt to overthrow the country’s constitutional monarchy." . Thailand's severe media censorship is very well documented both on the respective Misplaced Pages article and more recent analysis such as Reporters without Borders and Freedom House . In addition to previous points from User Sj and myself, search engine statistics should be avoided according to Misplaced Pages's invalid criteria for notability Misplaced Pages:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria and the quality of Thai national news is questionable considering such extreme censorship. To the contrary, The Times itself is one of the top circulating newspapers in the UK and the world, with a monthly reach of almost 16 million , and The News Lens a monthly reach of almost 14 million in the Chinese-speaking world . -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree with User Sj on encouraging to add more detail and seeking more references over a few months rather than rushing straight into AfD. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete the article reads like a resume. The creator has provided WP:THREE sources above, but I find none of them convincing. She is acting as a spokesperson in the video piece with the Times; perhaps she is doing so on behalf of a notable group but that video does not suggest to me that she is personally notable. The second one is only a trivial mention of her, and the third one does not even mention her last name. The coverage does not meet GNG. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • This is not a resume; it would be unusual for a resume to contain criticism and lawsuits against a subject... The Times video piece is about the subject as an individual and her experience. Which part of the video makes you think that she acts as a spokesperson? The second one (The News Lens) covers her work in-depth in more than half of the article. How is that only a trivial mention? As for the the Apple Daily article + video, the subject is mentioned several times and also featured in the video. The content about the subject carries significant weight in the wider content. Although not very relevant, in Thai naming convention, the first name is the most important part, while the surname was introduced only very recently. Please also check the above notes regarding censorship in Thailand. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I agree that current coverage does not suffice. There are arguments for why other parts of the bio might be hard to source, including national political work and being the head of her own firm, but they need independent sources indicating significance, which seem scarce in English. TFC: perhaps I was hasty in accepting; better perhaps to return this to draft status while you work on it. – SJ + 03:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • commeent need more trusted citation (comment by soon-blocked sock)
  • Keep. Restatement with new detail due to relisting. Notability according to GNG is established by reliable sources independent of the subject, including The Times (one of the oldest and largest newspapers in the world that adheres to the press editors code of practice and is included in Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). More than half of The News Lens piece is about the subject's work, and Apple Daily covers her significantly in text and video. Comments arguing against the notability of the subject appear not to look at the sources in detail (e.g. production of the subject? subject being a spokesperson? there is no evidence for this), nor take into account the context of the topic (Censorship in Thailand, Lèse-majesté in Thailand). Republican content is censored in Thailand, a country which is in the same category for press freedom as Venezuela according to Reporters Without Borders . Misplaced Pages's advice there includes taking into account alternative sources as state sources are unreliable Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources. The article being discussed uses both high standard international press and other independent sources. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: As Sj (who reviewed the article at AfC) suggested above, re-draftifying the article until the sourcing can be improved seems like a good compromise. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
    I was waiting to hear back from TFC, but will return to draft presently. I'd be glad to see the article again after improvement. NB: In general, when censorship is an issue, reliable sources in other countries commenting on that specific censorship can also be suitable sources - the Streisand effect in action. – SJ + 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:12, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Please move sources discovered into the article. Liz 06:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse

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

Doe not meet GNG. One ref is the company website. The other is short local restaurant review (a Orange Coast Magazine directory-type listing that is published often). Searching finds social media, restaurant review sites, etc, all of which is routine for almost any restaurant. I found one newspaper article about a rodent infestation problem that is not in the article. MB 03:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Restaurant reviews:
      1. Hodgins, Paul (1998-01-03). "Hidden Treasure - Steak house gets snippy - Nixon resigned his tie without regret at this renowned canyon-country steak house". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The 513-word restaurant review notes: "The Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse is one of those rustic roadhouses that, at first glance, looks nothing like a place where our 37th president would have felt comfortable. Tucked into a leafy, rural south-county byway near O'Neill Regional Park, the 29-year-old restaurant (born the year Dick was elected to the Oval Office) is the picture of homey unpretentiousness. ... Obviously, Dick didn't. A cherished 1979 photo, guarded by plexiglass on the left as you enter, shows Nixon losing his neckwear to the scissors _ that must have made the Secret Service guys jumpy _ and next to it is the offending tie, ..."

        The Orange County Register is a regional newspaper which means that the restaurant passes Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says:

        The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

      2. Chao, Fifi (2005-07-04). "Legendary Haunts: Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse". Orange County Business Journal. Vol. 28, no. 27. pp. 28–29. ISSN 1051-7480. EBSCOhost 17640982.

        The 333-word restaurant review notes: "We have to thank the original owners who opened Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse 37 years ago. Steve and Dori Nordeck, the owners since 1987, have kept the fun tradition and the good, understandable food coming. This place is one of a kind. Live oak trees, huge ones, grow right through the roof of the restaurant. The wall and ceiling decorations are neckties cut from city dudes who didn't know the rules: come in with a tie and leave without the bottom two thirds. For all the fun of kicking back in casual clothes at this cozy, rustic place, the food is serious."

      3. Chao, Fifi (2004-07-05). "Summer in the Cities: Trabuco Oak Steakhouse". Orange County Business Journal. Vol. 27, no. 27. pp. 45–46. ISSN 1051-7480. EBSCOhost 13773882.

        The restaurant review notes: "Trabuco Oaks still is completely rustic with raw wood beams and studs showing off their might, albeit behind literally thousdands of neckties on display that have been cut from dudes who wandered in grossly overdressed for the occasion. And we must not forget to point out that the massive oak tree, arund which the restaurant was built, still grows through the roof, necessitating a larger roof opening every few years to accommodate it. ... Chef Mario Moreno started as a dishwasher here 15 years ago and stayed on, turning into a superb grill chef."

    2. Significant coverage and passing mentions:
      1. Perry, Charles (2003-02-26). "Steak served with a legacy". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article provides 193 words of coverage about the restaurant. The article notes: "Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse is an oddity, maybe because it opened in the contrarian ‘60s (the year was 1968). ... the county's most venerable steakhouse is way up in the hills, and its decor is closer to Dogpatch than Las Vegas. This might have been the restaurant that started the cute custom of snipping the necktie off anybody who walks in wearing one. The back dining room is a morgue of martyred neckties, hanging from the rafters in their thousands like rumpled, bravely colorful stalactites, speaking mutely of the changing necktie styles of decades past."

      2. "Tie is prime cut at steakhouse". Richmond Times-Dispatch. 2007-07-08. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article notes: "Signed, framed jerseys are everywhere in restaurants, but there's a more impressive piece of sports memorabilia at the Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse in Orange County's Trabuco Canyon. It's a rustic place where they'll cut off your tie if you wear one, and thousands of those lopped-off accessories hang from the ceiling or are stapled to the walls."

      3. Epstein, Benjamin (1998-05-28). "Happy Trails--Until We Eat Again". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article notes: "For dinner, it’s hard to beat the Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse. Just inside is a bathtub full of plants and a display of barbed wire; farther along is a fascinating collection of ceramic Jim Beam whisky bottles. The restaurant has held fast to a no-tie policy for 30 years, which means there’s no holding fast enough to yours to keep it from joining the 7,500 other ties hanging from the rafters. "

      4. Hamm, Catharine (2019-03-17). "It's about the animals on a weekend escape to Orange County's canyon country". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article notes: "Lunch was a turkey sandwich eaten under an oak tree, so I felt no guilt about a steak dinner at Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse, which prides itself on its no-necktie policy. The cut-off remnants of neckwear have become part of the restaurant’s decor, including one from 1979 said to have belonged to former President Nixon. My 8-ounce sirloin ($26) went well with a skillet of hot button mushrooms, and Gary seemed happy with his 8-ounce filet ($36). Best steak we ever had? Not quite, but it was far more succulent than that turkey sandwich."

      5. Inge, Arline, ed. (2007) . A Marmac Guide to Los Angeles and Northern Orange County: 5th Edition. Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company. p. 85. ISBN 978-1-58980-393-0. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse ... This quaint little hideaway in the country is the local choice for the best steaks around. Business cards and snipped ties from customers, including Richard Nixon, cover the walls along with funky signs and sayings. Its specialty is great-tasting beef. Dinner nightly."

      6. Quines, Bryan (2008-01-17). "Feel like you could eat a cow? Try these places". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article notes: "For a steak cooked the cowboy way, head to Trabuco Oaks Steak House ... The roadhouse serves steaks cooked over a true mesquite grill. No electric or gas, just fire and wood. Fancy clothes ain’t welcome here, city slicker, and employees will cut your tie off if you even try. Hundreds of ties adorn the walls, including Richard Nixon’s, displayed near the entrance. The big daddy on the menu is the Cowboy ($46.96), a 32-ounce aged top sirloin steak. The waitress warns that even medium cooked steaks will have some pink so order accordingly. For a side, try the hand-cut fries. They’re even better than In-N-Out’s spuds."

      7. Cuniff, Meghann M. (2018-06-29). "San Juan Capistrano mourns Steve Nordeck, 76, proprietor of Swallow's Inn and El Adobe". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the restaurant. The article notes about Steve Nordeck: "He for several years owned the Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse, a destination restaurant near where Moiso and Aguirre were developing Rancho Santa Margarita."

      8. "Unlikely Achievers in the Orange County Restaurant Scene". Orange Coast. 2018-04-19. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject: "Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse Hefty, mesquite-grilled steaks in the county’s remaining wilderness, resisting change since 1968."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:06, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid deletion rationale has not been advanced. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 16:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Internet Channel

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

This article passes as a article, but i think it should redirect to Wii Menu#Internet Channel TzarN64 (talk) 15:50, 3 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 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) 16:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

1964 in Nagaland

1964 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per the precedent set at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1963 in Nagaland and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2018 in New York City, I nominate this article, along with 57 other articles from deletion.

Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are no secondary reliable sources asserting the " in Nagaland" is a topic for scholarly research. It fail WP:GNG, and thus shoudl be deleted. As for the alternative of redirecting it to Timeline of Naga history, I am opposed to it. Vast majority of these lists are incomplete; there is nothing significant to merge and redirect to the main timeline article. Also, even "1970s/1980s/etc. in Nagaland" would not be notable. Let me add that these lot pages are not nominated due to them being incomplete, that is a secondary issue. The primnary issues here is lack of notability, and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

The complete list of pages nominated for deletion are:

1964 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (nomination page)
1965 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1966 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1967 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1968 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1969 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1970 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1971 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1972 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1973 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1974 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1976 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1978 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1980 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1981 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1983 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1984 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1985 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1986 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1987 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1988 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1989 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1990 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1991 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1992 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1993 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1994 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1995 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1996 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1997 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1998 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1999 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2000 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2001 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2002 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2003 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2004 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2020 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2021 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:53, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Artur Eresko

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

Advert, created by a SPA, no sign of notability Bash7oven (talk) 15:47, 3 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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Irfan Aziz Botta

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

Doesn't seem very notable. The sources provided are very low-quality, most of them making only passing mentions of him, and even I can't find any good sources for this article. I tried to search for his birth year on Google and I didn't find it; is he really so notable if we can't even find the birth year? As a side note, the author has created many drafts which have been declined due to notability issues. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 16:08, 3 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 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. Already deleted in bundle with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Horner Avenue. Snow applies here as well, we do not need to pile on new user. Star Mississippi 19:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Lonsdale Road (Toronto)

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

Another road in Toronto with no indication of notability. Would PROD but I've already PRODed one and two others by the same creator are at AfD already. At this point I think a warning needs to be issued. casualdejekyll 15:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This road is part of ONTARIO HIGHWAY 11A, so it is REASONABLE to create an article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiokipedia (talk • contribs) 15:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, a short 150 metre segment of Lonsdale formed part of the route of Ontario Highway 11A until 1953. Highway 11A is notable because it was a provincial highway, but this notability doesn't extend to individual streets that made up said highway. - Floydian  ¢ 15:52, 3 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 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. Eddie891 Work 15:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Index of Afghanistan-related articles

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

Directly inspired by the recent Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Index of Sri Lanka–related articles—which in turn followed discussions about Afghanistan's neighbours India, Pakistan and China—this Afghanistan index is also woefully incomplete, even of the articles that exist about Afghanistan now. Being an uncontextual data dump, it is of little conceiveable use to readers. Geschichte (talk) 15:13, 3 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 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. There's consensus not to keep this (in this form) but no consensus about a redirect. Sandstein 11:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Catholic Charismatic Church of Canada

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

Clearly fails WP:NCHURCH, whether on the name given in the WP article or on the name given on the website ("Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services of Ontario"); I found nothing on this alleged group. The article is unsourced despite a 2011 request.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment There are some scant mentions in GNews from 1979, early 1980s, in English language Regina and Montreal newspapers, proving they exist, but I've never heard of them. Not sure if they're still around. A search in French for "eglise catholique charismatique du canada" brings up business registration numbers, not too much else. Seems they incorporated in 1976 or so. Something in a Qc newspaper about Chemin Neuf Canada, seems to be an offshoot of this religious ideal, , but it was founded by another priest. We're going to need an entire rewrite/newly researched article at this point, to explore what happened with the group. Seems to be an offshoot of Vatican II reforms. I have no interest in writing it however. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 00:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Catholic charismatic renewal There is little to no coverage of this as a denomination. Sources are very sparse but they present a picture of a small group of individual parish churches that have, over the years, separated themselves from the Roman Catholic church over perceived liberalization of the RCC. They seem to share none of the markers of an actual denomination such as a unified doctrine or an organizational structure. The best AtD appears to be redirecting to the movement that they sort of share. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss possible redirect target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve:, as I mentioned above, I see no indication that this is actually a denomination in any significant way. I do not think, therefore, that WP:RPURPOSE would recommend against such a redirect. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: I believe WP:R#DELETE n. 5 and the current practice of deleting redirects when they are not mentioned at the target at RfDs make it so that redirecting would be a bad idea. Veverve (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Veverve:, that is not an absolute requirement. Please suggest a different target if you think this one is a poor choice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Ali Murad Khan Kalhoro

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

Supposed chief of the Kalhora tribe from 1880 - 1925, which supposedly founded the Kalhora dynasty. The article has had no references since its creation 8 years ago, hence failing WP:V, while also being non-notable; failing WP:GNG. Search results bring up nothing close to a reliable source, which makes me think that this is a Hoax. If someone informs me of any reliable sources that report on this man, put it in the article and I shall pull this. Another thing to note: the Kalhora dynasty page does not correspond with this page - there is no mention of this man over there, fueling my suspicions. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:13, 3 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 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. Source analysis refutes the only substantive keep vote. The other vote does not address The sources meeting GNG and is therefore insufficient to dispute the source analysis Spartaz 08:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Charles E. Mills Secondary School

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

The article has four references. All of which are either primary, extremely trivial, dead links, blog posts, or some combination of the four. I couldn't find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE either except a few extremely trivial name drops in school directories and an article about their sports team. None of which works for notability. Maybe someone can find references that do work for notability though. Otherwise, I think the article should be deleted. Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The first reference is extremely trivial, the second and third are blog posts, the forth is a statement from the school principle, the fifth is a blog post from the source as the other blog posts, the sixth is about their sports team and might work, but not on it's own, and the last reference is yet another blog post from the same source as the other ones. Not to mention it's about a couple of kids being wounded in a school yard. Which is extremely run of the mill. Misplaced Pages isn't a news source. So essentially we have one reference that is barely usable if at all and a bunch of WP:NOTNEWS articles from a blog that don't work for notability. Oh, and a statement from the principle that is primary and doesn't work for notability either. So in no way is this the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage or a "clear WP:GNG pass." The last reference in particular says literally nothing about the school except for name dropping it in the headline. So nothing is significant about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree that is a "blog", it appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. Based on this article it does have an editorship structure and does issue corrections/apologies/retractions.
I also don't agree that coverage of the sports teams of CEMSS is trivial coverage, especially national-level coverage of multiple sports successes at the school. Sports education is clearly part of a school's remit and so coverage of sports is coverage of the school. CEMSS is one of only 6 high schools in St. Kitts and Nevis, which has no university, so it is not surprising that it (and its sports teams) should be treated as worth covering by the SKN press.
Searching the former name of the school also brings up references covering its 50th anniversary (e.g., 8 9) as well as a USAID report with coverage of the school. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Blogs retract statements sometimes. That's not really what makes something a blog or not. Nor does someone retracting something once mean there's an "editorship structure." As far as what does make something a blog, according to WP:Blog "A blog (a truncation of "weblog") is a discussion or informational website published on the World Wide Web consisting of discrete, often informal diary-style text entries (posts). Posts are typically displayed in reverse chronological order, so that the most recent post appears first, at the top of the web page." Which literally describes www.sknvibes.com. If we can't go with how Misplaced Pages defines a blog to determine if something is one or not then I'm not really sure why we are doing this.
As far as the the article on the sports team goes, 99% of it is an interview with the coach and he doesn't say anything about the school in the interview. Just to pick a random quote from the interview, he says "The group of coaches I spoke about earlier, their friends offer support, if one athlete in particular is late for training or don’t want to train, their friends would remind them that they have training as well as the fans we got who would offer them support.” Where is the school being talked about at all in that quote? Interviews aren't usable for notability anyway even if it did have anything to do with the school. If you disagree, then make an article about the sports team if that's what most of the coverage is about. The sports team isn't the school though. We can't have a blank article except for a section on their track and field team. It's undue weight and that's not the topic of the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
"Blog" implies SKNVibes this is a self-published source. It clearly isn't since SKNVibes is an established company that e.g., sells advertising space and offers jobs-listings. Are you really using the fact that they published news stories in chronological order as a reason to call them a blog? Because literally every news website does that. Additionally, we can see reliable sources in the Caribbean region using them as a source (e.g., 10 11 ) That last source calls them a "news website", not a blog. Clearly a WP:NEWSORG. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Did you look at the website? Go to https://www.sknvibes.com/news/, notice the last word in the URL is "news", click on some of the "news articles", and you'll find that a lot of them are press releases, "messages" (whatever that is), or other "not actually news article" things like flight schedules. Now tell me which one of those, press releases, "messages", or flight schedules do you think are actually "news" and (or) not self published? Also you'll notice on that on the bottom of most or all of their "news articles" that they have the following disclaimer "This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com." Where in that statement does it say that there's any editorial control of the "news articles" they publish? It literally says they don't do any editing of the content they receive. Let alone can anyone take away from that there is any kind of "editorship structure" involved in it like you've said there is. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
No such notice on their staff-reporter-provided articles, such as this one, this one, this one. ALL of the sources relied on above are from staff reporters. The very fact that they actively disclaim the ones that aren't (most of which come from SKNIS - the government media outlet) shows that they are doing their basic job as a media outlet. Of course there is an editorship structure if there is an editor-in-chief. We even have other sources talking about the "management" of SKNVibes over the CBI affair. FOARP (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
PS - look at the online profiles of some of the bylines in the SKNVibes articles, e.g., Jermine Abel, Stanford Conway has credits for Reuters photos/articles. Why do you think these guys who are obviously professional journalists are working for a "blog"? FOARP (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The articles that are supposedly written by staff reporters aren't really though. Which is why the ones you linked to are littered with phrases like "That announcement was made by Minister of Education Jonel Powell", "According to Powell", "Statistics from the Ministry of Health", "Minister Powell noted that his Ministry believes", "The announcement came days after Desmond Haynes was appointed", "CWI, in a media statement, said the Guyanese appointment was confirmed" Their literally just reposting almost verbatim what other people tell them and content from other news outlets. I could care less if a "staff reporter" is the one creating the blog post. It's not their work, research, or anything else of theirs and they aren't claiming it is. They are extremely clear that their content is from other people and outlets. Including press releases.
Maybe some of the staff writers are professional journalists, but it doesn't mean all of them are or that the cut and pasting work they do for sknvibes.com is in that capacity or automatically up to the same standards of the work they did for Reuters. I'm not going to say just because someone wrote an article for Reuters that everything they write is exactly the same. Let alone that every outlet they write for must have the quality control and oversight that Reuters does. Obviously different blogs and news outlets have varying degrees of review and editorial control over the work they publish, and writers will write definitely depending on where their work is being published. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
It is very, very normal for reporters to quote officials, press-releases etc. in a story. That is just basic journalism. I don't even know why you're focused so much on trying to prove that this outlet (which is prominent enough to get into disputes with the government, has an editor-in-chief, staff reporters who work for other major news outlets, is quoted as a news outlet by other news outlets etc. etc.) is a "blog" when it is only one of about 4-5 sources here. Frankly I'm happy to leave this discussion here and see what other editors think. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure but when it's 99% of the article and comes at the cost of the author doing actual journalism then that's an issue. Like WP:REPUTABLE says "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors." If something is a 99% word for word copy of what someone else is saying then it's not the "analysis, views, and opinions of a reliable authors" at that point. I'd be totally fine with SKNVibes if they did actual analysis, but that's clearly not what they are doing. Instead their they are just parroting what other people say and slapping their name on the byline. You can't even call it a source at that point. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • DeleteThis High School provides a non-specialist education and so must adhere to the guideline requiring all universities and colleges providing mainstream education to satisfy the notability guidelines or GNG (per WP:NSCHOOL). WP:ORG guidelines require significant coverage which this college does not have. No independent significant coverage indicating notability. The coverage it has obtained is questionable and I am not satisfied of its reputability based on the discussion above. Hence also fails GNG and so is not fit for inclusion and ought be deleted.Such-change47 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I didn't want to do another relist, but while there's significant discussion there isn't consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep After looking at the sources, it seems that while some of the language is certainly promotional, the factual evidence contained such as dates etc. is not, and can reliably be used. Ignore the fluff, include the substance. DiscantX 09:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Secondary schools are very rarely notable, and to be covered they need significant coverage in reliable sources, which the sources cited above fall far short of. Sandstein 12:01, 11 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas. No consensus for a change in normal practice Star Mississippi 03:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ricky Harrington Jr

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

Still not notable as coverage is routine for campaigns. This has not changed since the last deletion discussion. ― Tartan357  21:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tartan357: My reasoning for not deleting this article, given the past deletion discussion, is that Harrington is also a candidate in the 2022 Arkansas gubernatorial election. However, if this still does not meet the criterion for notability, the article should be deleted. Joffejs (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
That has no impact on notability one way or the other. What matters is not what a person has done, but how much they've been written about (see WP:BASIC). When it comes to unelected political candidates, there is always some coverage, and it usually fits under the umbrella of the election article. Consolidating that coverage in one place allows us to have higher-quality content. It is only when the candidate gets an unusual amount of attention that they should have their own article. I should note that I am a fan of Ricky (I went to one of his rallies and took the picture you used), and I appreciate what you're doing. You can add verified information about his campaigns to the election articles, which has already been done some at 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas. ― Tartan357  22:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tartan357: I am a new user to Misplaced Pages, so I'll trust your judgment. I had just thought that what was notable was the 34% victory for a Senate candidate, but I definitely see your reasoning and have read through WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL now. I wasn't aiming to do this to promote him as a candidate, but he does seem like a great guy. I agree now that the article page has no use as of now. Cheers to the great photo! Joffejs (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are some policy-based comments on why this should be an exception to normal redirect. Suggest further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:27, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz 06:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Robert Alonso

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and both WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. The article was created by a single purpose account (Nonitamater), and despite recent changes, it is still heavily reliant on self-published sources, including Alonso's webpage (https://robertalonsopresenta.com) and YouTube.

He appears to be most notable for being the owner of the Daktari Ranch in Venezuela, which already has an article on its own Daktari Ranch affair; any notable content not included already there can be merged, and this article should be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT. Despite writing some books, his works don't appear to have independent coverage or received any award, and after running in a municipality election, he himself admits having received only three votes.

After the Early life section, the article proceeds to include a huge COATRACK of the 2004 and 2014 protests in Venezuela, the aforementioned Daktari Ranch affair and the presidential crisis. Besides that, the only mentions regarding Alonso are only statements and positions.

The only sources that I can find about him are mostly passing mentions. The rest of the reliable sources in the article are about the coatrack events previously mentioned.

It should also be mentioned that one of the images uploaded in Commons by the editor is titled "1993 Caballo apoloosa que murió en Daktari y tuvimos que descuartizarlo para sacarlo 3.jpg" (1993 apoloosa horse that died in Daktari and we had to quarter it to get it out 3.jpg), which suggests that it can have a close connection with the subject and a potential conflict of interest, something of which they have already been warned about in their talk page. See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daktari Ranch

NoonIcarus (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz 06:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Brocagh Emmetts GAC

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

Deleted through AfD a few years ago, so not eligible for prod. Recently recreated without a single ref from an independent reliable source. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 11:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Arunudoy, your link is literally just a google search. Can you point to reliable, independent, specific coverage that would signify legitimate coverage? I'm asking because if you have those, I would possibly strike my !vote. Spf121188 (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 03:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

D'Vontay Friga

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

Not close to being a notable basketball player. His YouTube career also has not generated significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC) ok. please delete page. I apologize for the inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinod1227 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 03:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yevaal

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

I could find only four sources, two of which were the same article republished, and the remaining sources just don't seem like enough to establish notability since they're regular run-of-the-mill articles about planned movies. It hasn't been released and fails both GNG and NFILM. AryKun (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 3 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 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. Spartaz 22:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Nima-Mamobi gang violence

Nima-Mamobi gang violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Nima-Mamobi Gang Violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 11:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please it is a news. It occurred in Nima. Videos even circulated on social media involving the violence. Thanks daSupremo 22:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is no clear consensus to delete, the keep !votes have asserted that the article meets WP:NEVENTS without providing evidence as to why the article meets the guideline. Relisting to provide an opportunity for evidence of notability to be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment - It seems like merging to Maamobi is a plausible WP:ATD here. Suriname0 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete According to the sources used, the media reports are not even sure whether or not anyone was killed in this violence or the extent of the injuries to people. With this much ambiguity about what actually happened, and much of the event occurring on social media and not in the real world, I don't think there is much value in keeping this article. Liz 03:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 08:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:41, 20 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 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. I have noted the number of, shall we say, very new accounts arguing to keep here. Given the issues with sock puppetry, arguments from those have been discounted. With what is left over from more experienced editors, the consensus is clearly to delete. Seraphimblade 02:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Mario Cerrito

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

Deleted through AfD in 2014 and 2016, and the subject of a long-running sockpuppetry campaign to recreate. Current incarnation was created by what is almost certainly a UPE throwaway account, which has already had two other articles deleted as promotional (1 · 2). This looks very strongly like someone having gotten sick of not being able to evade SPI and paying someone else to do it for them, but sadly I can't prove that to a high enough degree of confidence to justify a G5 under WP:MEAT, and the text is sufficiently different to preclude G4, so here we are.

Cerrito has directed two films that we have articles on, Deadly Gamble and Human Hibachi. However, notability is not inherited, and the bulk of this article is promotionally-toned content about those films and his other works. The only non-inherited SIGCOV in the article are two local-news puff pieces and some mentions from when he was on an episode of Ghost Nation. The only other coverage I find in a BEFORE search is some news coverage from a time he witnessed a suicide.

While he is closer to notable now than he was in 2016, I still don't think he meets the bar, and urge deletion. Note: If this article is deleted, the title should be re-salted, as should the most recent salt-hacks, Mario Cerrito III., Mario G. Cerrito III, and Mario Cerrito 3rd. -- Tamzin (she/they) 13:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC) ed. 14:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep I vote keep. Individual has a lot of references on Google search. Has done notable work and was featured in National televised TV show. Career seems to have spanned about 10 years. Upon researching other independent filmmakers or actors that have Misplaced Pages pages, Mr. Cerrito seems to have more body or work and references. Summerlee44 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock
  • Keep When I saw that the article had been recreated, my knee-jerk reaction was to push for speedy deletion, a giveaway being that the title of the article was "Mario Ceritto III." with a period at the end of the name in an apparent attempt to pass under the radar. After further review of the article, it was clear that Cerrito does have coverage that is unambiguously about him and his work. The notability standard is met here. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt I find more hits for his appearance on Ghost Nation, which amounts to one time. Nothing in GNews beyond local sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to have enough sources to meet GNG, with plenty of google hits. Has directed notable films, which is not a given but helps his notability. The sockpuppetry is a seperate issue. ~EDDY ~ 16:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with above. Enough sources to meet notability standards.2601:8D:8700:5E10:D5E0:983D:E9A4:B0E8 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock
  • Note: Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MikePlant1 regarding two of the above keep !votes. -- Tamzin (she/they) 13:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not a sock puppet of anyone. I live in the same area as the person and find it fascinating that is a movie maker in the south Jersey area (where I live.) Obviously I focus on individuals and things I appreciate or feel compelled to edit. I edited on his film back in 2018 because of course I knew about that as well. You are making a lot of accusations but are failing to see that the individual is notable with plenty of references and sources to back it up as stated by others. Instead of trying to put me down and make me feel like I am not wanted to edit on Misplaced Pages, support would be greatly appreciated.Summerlee44 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject's article has 48 inline cites and numerous credits listed on IMDb — more than sufficient evidence of his notability. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Roman Spinner: First of all, you should acknowledge that you were canvassed here by Summerlee. Secondly, I'm trying to be deferential to process here by not removing all the low-quality citations that Summerlee and 2601 have added until after they're blocked as sockpuppets, but if you actually look at what those 48 citations are, many are to things as tangential as college athletic stats, or to user-generated content, with the only real RS coverage being local-news puff pieces. You are being suckered in by a serial sockmaster who's been at this for the better part of a decade and is just sticking every single Google hit for their own name into this article as references to boost the appearance of notability. And who, I note again, blatantly canvassed you to this discussion after admitting to have a COI with the subject (a narrative that, amusingly, differs from the one they've given here and at SPI). -- Tamzin (she/they) 04:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
    For full transparency, noting that I've cut about 4kB worth of blatantly promotional, excessively detailed, unsourced, or poorly-sourced information. The entire article basically read like a CV. Much of what's left in the article is still seriously problematic, but this at least gives a somewhat better picture of what we're working with. -- Tamzin (she/they) 04:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: Summerlee did indeed post on my user talk page informing me of this AfD and if that were the reason for my participation here, I would have mentioned it in my vote. However, as you may or may not know, I previously voted at Talk:Mario Cerrito#Requested move 24 January 2022 and, since I watchlist all my edits, was already aware of this AfD and would have at some point voted here even if Summerlee had not contacted me.
As an inclusionist, I argue against deletion as part of virtually every AfD in which I participate. Furthermore, I have edited Misplaced Pages on a nearly-daily basis for over 16 years and the majority of my edits are in fields of film and TV. Thus, you give me very little credit by writing, "You are being suckered in by a serial sockmaster...", since any filmmaker with the eight-year list of credits that Mario Cerrito has on IMDb would have earned a "keep" vote from me with no further arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Roman Spinner: Per WP:INAPPNOTE, that message was obviously canvassing for two reasons: it was not neutral ("I did see you supported him as well", asking to reiterate support), and the audience chosen (you) was partisan instead of nonpartisan (evidenced by your inclusionist stance described above, highlighted by the fact that your last 42 !votes have been Keep, with the last recorded different vote being cast in December 2020; the canvasser's statement about your past support obviously counted on that). An experienced 16 year veteran editor such as yourself should know not to respond to inappropriate consensus-building attempts through WP:CANVASSING, so I ask that you please strike your vote. This is otherwise material for a AN complaint. Pilaz (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Pilaz: Is it your position, that because of my "inclusionist stance", I should have recused myself from participating in this AfD as soon as I received the canvassing posting from Summerlee who must have felt that I was a supporter of Mario Cerrito?
In fact, I had never heard of Mario Cerrito before participating at Talk:Mario Cerrito#Requested move 24 January 2022 where my "support" vote was simply in favor of the uncontroversial technical request of punctuation deletion and also in favor of suggestion by another participant that the generational suffix "III" be deleted.
Also, your posting appears to imply either a) that as an inclusionsist I am not neutral and therefore should desist from participation in all deletion discussions, b) I should limit my recusal to participation in deletion discussions dealing with my most frequent editing topic — the entertainment industry, or c) I should have at least halted any involvement with this AfD as soon as I was canvassed by Summerlee.
If your position is (c), it would thus lead to the conclusion that had I voted here before receiving Summerlee's posting, my "keep" vote would have been in the clear, although still not neutral due to my inclusionism, but since I voted "keep" after receiving Summerlee's posting, I should strike my vote since it is tainted by Summerlee's canvassing.
I reject any suggestion of a lack of neutrality on my part or that Summerlee's posting had any effect on my vote. Also, to counter any presumption that, upon receiving Summerlee's posting, I rushed to cast my "keep" vote, it should be noted that Summerlee's posting on my talk page is dated 14:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC), while my one-sentence "keep" vote is dated 00:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC). The vote stands.
Finally, although I rarely, if ever, make personal comments about editors with whom I interact, I do not see your vote in this discussion and am puzzled by your decision to enter this AfD not to cast your own vote, but to single out my brief vote for attention and even to go so far as to mention the possibility of "a AN complaint". Is there an ax to grind here? —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Roman Spinner: My position is the one I made above. You were canvassed and should not have participated in this AfD, are a partisan audience as described by WP:INAPPNOTE, were not notified neutrally, and were the only user canvassed out of everyone else who participated in the RM you described - any minimal due diligence on your part should have been to check whether others had been equally informed and, failing that, to inform them to level the playing field. If you don't see the problem with being canvassed by a blocked sock, I can't help with that beyond what I wrote here and above. Pilaz (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Pilaz: Once again, I reject the suggestion that my "keep" vote was in any way influenced by Summerlee's posting on my talk page or that I became aware of this AfD as a result of that posting. Since I did no previous editing on anything related to Mario Cerrito and had no interaction with Summerlee prior to my vote at Talk:Mario Cerrito#Requested move 24 January 2022, there was no reason for me to suspect any need for due diligence or for contacting other participants.
I knew nothing about any "blocked sock" and merely arrived at both venues (RM as well as AfD) to cast a brief vote as I have done at numerous other occasions. Any implication that my receipt of Summerlee's posting disqualifies me from participation in this AfD has no basis in policy. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, so you've said, over and over again. Whatever else may be the case, you are certainly now aware that you were canvassed here at the request of a sock puppet account. It would be optimal for you to withdraw of modify your !vote to take this into account but it is not necessary. The inappropriate notification of a !voter, no matter how honest that !voter believes their input to be, is something that the closer here is able take into account per WP:NHC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I've said it over and over again in response to the same issue being raised over and over again — Summerlee's posting on my talk page invited me to vote on the Mario Cerrito AfD which was already known to me due to the fact that the Mario Cerrito article was on my watchlist.
I made a decision to vote "keep" as soon as I learned about the AfD and planned to cast my vote at some point in the near future when I got around to it. Summerlee's posting appeared less than an hour after the AfD opened, but I didn't get around to vote on it until three days later.
Thus, you appear to be saying that had I voted "keep" within the few minutes between the opening of the AfD and the appearance of Summerlee's posting on my talk page, then my vote would have been cast in good faith, but because I voted after receiving Summerlee's posting, even if it was three days after, my vote should be perceived by the closer as tainted. Such a premise and conclusion are both flawed. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep There are a few articles about him in local-but-mainstream publications. I removed the refs to IMDB and the PR site. I suspect, also, that the links to horrornews.net, horrorfuel.com, and dvdlocker.com are not acceptable as reliable sources. I also note that neither of the "film festivals" has enough presence to warrant the red wiki-links, so I think those should be removed. If these non-reliable sources are removed then I think with the local New Jersey papers there is just enough to keep this article. Lamona (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - significant coverage in multiple sources, and seems to make reasonable claims of notability, think its an easy keep. Saiskysat (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Relisting because of the sock issue. Geschichte (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Geschichte: I have formatted your relist so that it presents correctly to xfd closer. Bungle 10:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist as per request to reopen on closer's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 10:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

!vote by, and discussion with, blocked sock --Blablubbs (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep and Comment I am a little upset about this being up for deletion again after it just passed for "keep." As a working artist and businessman your name means a lot. I am currently casting for a new movie and was just informed this morning by an actors agent after he "googled me" that my wikipedia is facing deletion. He asked me why. As embarrassing as it was when he asked me, I didn't know how to respond. What is irritating me the worst is after researching the history on the article it was JUST nominated for deletion and passed as "keep." As much as I don't know about wikipedia I started doing some research/reading and found under (Misplaced Pages: Renominating for Deletion) it states : If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. After checking it has literally been a matter of 5 days and a page about me has the deletion tag again and it is not right. I can read above that Tamzin seems to have the problem and upon looking at the just passed deletion discussion she forgot to mention it looks to be 5 Keep votes including Alanshohn, Eddy, Roman Spinner, Lamona and Saisykat. I see that a few were crossed out for whatever reasons but I am going off of what I am reading. You have to understand that as a working artist and individual something like a deletion tag on the first website that pops up when people "google you" is very demeaning. I am in the process of casting a film and people do research of who they are working with. To point out something else under (Misplaced Pages : Renominating for deletion) it also states "If you wish to renominate the page, hoping to achieve a different outcome, then slow down. You and the other participants may be overly involved with a particular perspective. Relisting immediately may come across as combative. Immediate second round participants are less likely to listen, and are more likely to dig in their heels. You may be right, but the audience won’t be receptive. The other participants very likely will be thinking that you have not been listening to them." I feel this has been handled unfairly and wished to express my concerns here on the discussion page. MarioCerrito (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — MarioCerrito (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Summerlee44 (talk · contribs).
@MarioCerrito:, there is a fundamental inaccuracy in your question. The article did not recently "pass as Keep". Geschichte closed this discussion with a status of "Keep" on Feb 10 but then reopened this same discussion after Tamzin pointed out that the discussion was impacted by invalid comments. Since you posted an identical message on Geschichte's user talk page, I'm sure you read the message immediately above yours explaining this. This may sound like nitpicking but it substantively means that your entire point about being tagged for deletion twice in a short time has no basis. Whatever effect you think this has on your professional status is something we cannot control. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to provide a place where working artists and professionals can promote themselves. LinkedIn and Alignable and other places exist for that and do that better than we can. It exists to summarize what has been written about any topic that can demonstrate signifcant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The coverage that exists is not something that we control. On a more personal note, I have to state that I am also a working artist and professional and I have no article here nor would I ever want one. The mistake a lot of those in our situation make is in thinking that Misplaced Pages hosts pages on people. It does not. It writes articles on subjects. The difference is that the first presents a person as they wish to be seen and the second summarizes how others have written or talked about them. An article about oneself is not always a good thing. I hope that helps explain some things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Eggishorn:, Hi! Awesome to hear your a fellow artist. So to address this some more, I obviously am not up to speed like you guys on the Misplaced Pages lingo and all but I simply meant that the article was kept. After reading I see that if someone has closed a deletion discussion it says at the bottom "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." That case was not followed here. There was no deletion review, just a simple reopen after it was just closed 5 days ago. And getting back to this (Misplaced Pages: Renominating for Deletion) it states : If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. How is this OK? Simply because the user Tamzin was not satisfied with the result? It doesn't seem right. And yes I totally understand what you're saying about personal and Misplaced Pages world and obviously I am not part of the Misplaced Pages world so I am learning that but in the meantime I am also defending the situation I do not think was handled properly. Thanks and I am not being malicious at all just simply stating the facts. Best, Mario.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioCerrito (talk • contribs) 14:24, February 15, 2022 (UTC)
@MarioCerrito:, Except you have your facts somewhat incorrect. There was no renomination so the standards about that don't apply. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE states that editors can use formal processes such as WP:DRV but you can also speak to the closer if you think there was information the closer should have taken into account but were not aware of. That is exactly what happened here and Geschichte obviously agreed that there was a concern that invalidated their close. The "No further comments" message then becomes irrelevant because by reverting their own close, Geschichte opened the floor to further comments. And it was reopened not because of one editor's dissatisfaction but because this discussion was impacted negatively by users disrupting the discussion. See WP:SOCK for more information but the relevant passage is: ...it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, ... By making multiple !votes under different identities, there has been a distortion of the consensus and the previous close is not reliable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Eggishorn:, What you sent me is contesting a deleted page not a kept page. I don't want to argue I am curious as to how many pages are put into "kept status" and then immediately put back into deletion discussion a few days later. Especially since it clearly states that they should not be opened back up into deletion discussion until months later. There is also a specific process under deletion review. MarioCerrito (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@MarioCerrito: The previous status of "keep" was reached by a single editor, Geschichte, who at that time believed the consensus justified closing in that manner. A closing editor reserves the right to reverse their own decision, as Geschichte did and therefore invite further discussion. A relist in this instance is essentially extending the length of time afforded to consider the validity of the article and whether or not it should exist. This is not a new discussion and you need to disregard what is now an erroneous "keep". I ensured the relist was handled correctly, but have no personal opinion on the matter. Eggishorn explained this all to you very eloquently above. Bungle 15:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Bungle: Understood. I was just stating my concerns on the matter.MarioCerrito (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve

I agree this article reads like a resume, but that can be relatively easily changed. @MarioCerrito: If you want this article kept, I would suggest you make it read more like an encyclopedia. The article does need to read less as a promotion and strictly talk about the content you've produced. Lincoln1809 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@MarioCerrito: I don't agree with Lincoln1809. Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the Misplaced Pages article about yourself. If you have any specific suggestions, you can post them on the article's talk page - Talk:Mario Cerrito - with the {{edit request}} template. Or you could use the Misplaced Pages:Edit Request Wizard. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@GoingBatty:I have never edited this article before. MarioCerrito (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: and @Lincoln1809: for context, MarioCerrito was blocked for sockpupeting, demonstrating willingness to lie. Anton.bersh (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to draft or delete The notability of the subject is not well established at all. The writing is very poor and looks promotional, not encylopedic. If "delete" is resisted then at least move to draft. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete There are no sources which are independent, reliable, and significant at the same time, so there are no sources which would count towards notability. If anyone reading this believes there are sources which demonstrate notability, then please pick out these good sources and list them on this page for evaluation. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep sources seem to pass WP:GNG to me. The notable films he directed, makes the page worth keeping Cyberwayfolk (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Which specific notable movies do you keep in mind? I assume you mean Deadly Gamble, Ghost Nation (one episode), and Human Hibachi. Appearance in Ghost Nation is likely not notable because WP:NARTIST explicitly excludes "a single episode of a television series" from criteria of notability. I quickly looked over Deadly Gamble and Human Hibachi and am not certain they are notable. If you like, I can look in more detail to confirm at least one is notable or AfD them. Also, edit histories of both movies contain significant contributions made by banned accounts, so both articles at some point were edited in bad faith. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable local filmmaker, there are so many other similar independent, low budget film makers whose articles we have deleted. I've looked at all three AFD discussions and they have all been plagued with sockpuppet activity, so much that I almost think this page should be salted. Liz 01:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
And I just discovered that another title for this filmmaker, Mario Cerrito III, has already been salted. Liz 01:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
As is Mario Joseph Cerrito and Mario Joseph Cerrito 3rd. Three titles for this fellow are already salted, that is a bad sign. Liz 01:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Read through everything and some people are talking about no independent, reliable and significant sources. But I have seen plenty just in the reference section alone. If you look at them, they are news articles that focused solely on individual and his work. NJ.com is not a "local" publication that is NJ state level and he has been covered multiple times by multiple writers. The Sockpuppet stuff doesn't define whether someone is notable or not as Editorofthewiki mentioned above. There is enough here for inclusion.

Just some Examples of strong sources (I'm fairly certain someone that is non notable would not get written about 5 different times by NJ.com)

1. A publication in Philadelphia https://southphillyreview.com/2021/09/09/south-philly-director-cooks-up-another-horror-film/ 2. NJ.com A. articles http://www.nj.com/indulge/index.ssf/2015/03/nj_filmmaker_to_release_thriller_deadly_gamble.html B.http://www.nj.com/indulge/index.ssf/2015/03/deadly_gamble_nj_filmmaker_feature_film_now_available_on_demand.html C. https://www.nj.com/south/2013/06/james_gandolfini_legacy_loss_f.html D. https://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/2018/08/cerrito_film.html E. https://www.nj.com/south/2016/01/7_year_old_with_chronic_illness_to_appear_in_nj_fi.html 3. Courier-Post https://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2019/10/26/ghost-nation-travel-channel-reveals-reasons-mario-cerrito-home-haunted/2461303001/ WexfordUK (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm from New Jersey. NJ.com needs content like any media site and writes feature articles about local "celebrities" like any geographically-oriented paper/website does. It is state level in that it covers state issues (and local ones as well) but, honestly, NJ is a small state. It's not like NJ.com is the NYTimes, it's a website that focuses on NJ news, people and events. It has articles about politics in Trenton but also subjects like high school football and local lottery winners.
As for sockpuppets, how does an account that has been active for 2 days find its way to this AFD? You haven't been here long enough to have a User talk page yet. Liz 05:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: Small state but most densely populated. Again, if he was non notable why would he get written about so often. I didn’t realize everyone on Misplaced Pages had to be in NYTimes WexfordUK (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
No, you don't need to be in the NYTimes to be considered notable. But notability is also not determined by the number of articles the local paper/website runs on you, local media loves celebrities who live in the town or state, no matter how big or small they are. And, yes, NJ.com covers the state but I still consider that local, not national, in coverage. And yes, it is the most densely populated U.S. state but I lived where there were rabbits living in the back yard and skunks, ground hogs, deer and wild turkeys (the animal variety) and even bears passing through. Farmland & urban sprawl, is a state of dramatic contrasts, that is for sure. End of NJ chatter. Liz 19:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
As for this article, I can't get past the fact that we have so many pages on this fellow salted already, that speaks volumes to me. Liz 19:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: It isn’t just NJ.com I see, it’s Philadelphia based papers, other articles from other areas and a good amount of Horror sites from all over. I’m not saying he is Wes Craven but there’s are different levels of notability. Also to add, a whole episode (Episode 3 - The Novelist’s Nightmare) of Travel Channel’s Ghost Nation (TV Series) was filmed at his home on him and his family, covered by multiple sources. And to me it seems the sock issue was an article trying to get created for him over time and having to make new adjustments to name Bc of the others being salted. It seems they were given no chance because of recreation. As many have said, he seems to be notable per sources listed and body of work. The sock issues doesn’t determine notability. WexfordUK (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep The subject seems to have reasonably good number of reliable sources. I think GNG meet here. The work done by him in the industry mentioned in this article seems notable. Other issues may be resolved but the article may be kept. Billshine (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if we can get a sock-free week of source discussion by established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete and salt. Also, do not give into the socks. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 02:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Doczilla: Why should the subject suffer from the misuse of the platform by others. As stated above, sock puppets do not have bearing on whether someone is notable or not. The sources that are listed in the reference section show he is notable and has been over a span of ten years. WexfordUK (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment Just curious is this the longest AfD in wiki history? WexfordUK (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

nah it has some company for sure. Star Mississippi 01:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi: ha, amazing. I think this article needs a sub section of the sock puppets eventually. Sourced of course. WexfordUK (talk) 15:47, 25 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 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 and salt. I've been clerking, but never !voted, so I don't feel this is an involved close, nor is there really a question of the outcome as notability is ot clear and a further relist would likely bring more disruption than sourcing. I am opting not to draftify at the moment given the shenanigans of both editors, however if an established editor such as Necrothesp or Ravenswing would like this to incubate and see if sourcing can be found, I have no objection to doing so. Just ping me. Star Mississippi 20:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Pallab Bhattacharyya

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

Notability concerns have been expressed and creator has chosen to request testing at XfD rather than AfC which may have a slightly lower bar. Not fit for mainspace as is but position(s) may be sufficient to confer notability, though normally such positions will generate RS which are certainly not well leveraged into the article and not suitability wikilinked Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment With objection to the AfD/XfD, I want to give my opinion that the subject has the citations to verify the content. And a Director General of Police level officer with the additional charge of the State Intelligence's Chief (tons of citation are always not needed) are enough to pass WP:GNG. State Intelligence is also a SPY AGENCY, hence as other SPY AGENCY's officers don't reveal much about their personal life, it is hard to put vast info about the person. The article should be KEEP. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 04:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


  • Nope. Best not presume anything about anybody's braincells, especially if you keep pinging them. NPP tutor say: "Unlike CSDs and PRODs, you can mark AfDed pages as 'reviewed' after tagging them, as their fate will be decided via discussion and they can't fall through the cracks if tags are removed (a bot will restore them so long as the AfD discussion is open).". The the image that was previously here can be correctly sourced it would be eligible, certainly at lower resolution, for upload to the English WikiPedia under fair use criteria. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Onel5969: A DGP nd Chief of SPPY AGENCY doens't pass WPLGNG? Strangefrom you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Onel5969:, WP:NPOL isn't applicable here. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Someone who held the highest possible rank in the Indian police is very clearly notable. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    Comment: As it happens, he neither served in the national police, nor did he have the highest rank in the national police service. He served in the provincial police, and the highest Indian police rank is Director of the Intelligence Bureau. I'm unclear from where you get these erroneous notions. Ravenswing 11:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    I said he served in the Indian police. As an Indian Police Service officer he did just that. And Director general of police is the highest rank in the IPS. So there is no "erroneous notion" here whatsoever. Director of the Intelligence Bureau is essentially the most senior appointment that can be held by a DGP. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Draftify - I agree that someone who held the highest rank in the Indian Police is notable but this page needs expansion to add additional information beginning with what they did or were involved with whilst serving at any of their positions. For example here, here and here all mention him and could help with creating a couple of sentences on his role.Gusfriend (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete: As it stands, the subject does not pass the GNG, and there are no other notability grounds which he meets. I'm not sure where some editors got the notion that the subject led the "Indian" police; his highest position was as head of a provincial police department. No one would claim, for instance, that the head of the Massachusetts State Police was presumptively notable, and there are no notability criteria which claim so. Neither is being a police head detective heading a "spy agency," as the article creator stridently maintains. As far as NeverTry4Me's assertion that a policeman isn't interested in details of his life getting into the press, that may well be -- but the only answer to that is "Then an article on him cannot be sustained," as indeed there are no articles on 25 of the 28 current Indian provincial police chiefs. The GNG doesn't have waivers for whatever putative excuses there are for subjects to lack significant coverage. Ravenswing 11:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Did anyone say that he led the Indian police? I said he held the highest rank, which he did, as DGP is the highest rank in the IPS. And I would indeed also assert that "the head of the Massachusetts State Police was presumptively notable" per WP:COMMONSENSE! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Eeesh. The article detailing IPS ranks says otherwise. As far as "presumptive notability" goes, its very definition means that some notability guideline states so. No notability guidelines on Misplaced Pages accord presumptive notability to provincial police personnel, and WP:COMMONSENSE doesn't empower you to invent your own rules to suit your own preferences. Ravenswing 17:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Which article would that be? IPS, Police ranks and insignia of India and Director general of police all agree that this is the highest rank. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Right on the gazetted officers illo of Police ranks and insignia of India. It very clearly lists "Director of intelligence bureau" before "Director general of police," with an augmented shoulder insignia to boot. The Director general of police article does not say "highest rank of police." It says "highest ranking police officer in an Indian State or Union Territory." Kinda hard to miss. Ravenswing 20:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
            • Kinda hard to miss the footnote as well. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
              ...which is uncited. Retswerb (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
              Merely the most senior appointment of DGP, which is the highest rank! Your assertion is like saying the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest rank in the US military, and other admirals and generals therefore only the second highest ranks! But irrelevant anyway, given no guideline says that one is notable and the others are not. It should be blatantly obvious, in my opinion, per WP:COMMONSENSE, that the holders of the highest possible ranks in a national police service of a country the size of India are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
              (shrugs) Then go hop over to WP:BIO's talk page and either seek to amend NPOL to include police chiefs, or advocate the creation of a NCIVILSERVANT guideline (because cabinet ministers aren't presumptively notable either), and blessings be upon you. XfD, however, runs on the notability guidelines that exist, not the ones we wish did. Ravenswing 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
              "cabinet ministers aren't presumptively notable either". Er, yes they are, per WP:POLITICIAN! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
              Only in a Westminster-type system, where as a prerequisite to being a minister they are elected parliamentarians; WP:POLITICIAN does not cover appointed officials. Honestly, you seem really heavily invested in "winning" this AfD, which is odd given that other than the now-indeffed article creator, you're the only one advocating keeping it. As it happens, I find nowhere in "common sense" anything defining it as concurring with your personal POV. My take on common sense is that notability guidelines ought to be taken literally, as opposed to what I would wish them to be were I Dictator of Misplaced Pages. Ravenswing 08:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be the equivalent of a US State Police head (usually a Colonel), in a state roughly the size of Maine. Unless there are reliable sources to show why this individual has received coverage above and beyond what is routine for a civil servant's hiring, transfers, promotions, etc...then the subject does not meet the notability guide. ValarianB (talk)
  • Note that the chiefs of major US police organisations have generally been kept if taken to AfD. And the Texas Ranger Division is only 234 strong! The Texas Highway Patrol would be a closer match, but still not accurate as the police of an Indian state provide most policing in that state, whereas most American policing is on a city or county level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I stand by my assertion that no sourcing exists to support the subject's notability, and the position itself is inherently not notable. You can continue to travel this minor tangent about state size if you like, but I am done. ValarianB (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the conduct issues have been resolved at ANI, let's try for consensus. I advise participants to be aware of bludgeoning the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete After reviewing the arguments for "Keep" above, I find them unconvincing. The coverage presented so far is utterly routine for a civil servant and does not significantly cover the subject in any meaningful way. Compare the coverage for this person to that for, say, Cressida Dick. For Dick we have coverage of multiple events and crises that have been part of her tenure. For Bhattacharyya we have little more than teh markers that would allow us to present a resume. There is no support in the GNG or any applicable SNG for the proposition that being a police chief, of any level of any size polity, is inherently notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I see that everyone who is on the side of "DELETE" is just passing their opinion with some demand(if not seeking) SIGCOV about the subject person's personal life. But none noticed that this has focused some on his personal life (spouse, children, etc are not mentioned in the source). Beyond that, the subject person was the chairman of the Assam Public Service Commission, a position that can be held by only an IPS or IAS top rank officers and appointed by the Government, not by a political consensus. Additionally, and, most importantly, the subject person is also a member of the High-Level Committee of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord formed by Ministry of Home Affairs, India, where the Clause 6 of the Assam Accord is the most burning issue related to Assam Movement which is one of the world's biggest Student protest. A government officer who has/had held 3 government positions, appointed by the Government of India, is simply notable as per WP:COMMONSENSE. These facts are being ignored in this discussion and kept beyond focus here. I wonder, why, here are most notions about GNG, where adding too many citations can lead to citation bombing. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 07:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with the comment about the page for Cressida Dick which is certainly worth aspiring to but in the interim can I suggest that you check out the pages of Simon Overland and Christine Nixon? I am sure that there are a lot of others but they both include more details about what they did during their service.Gusfriend (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    We are talking about the GNG because that is the only notability criterion pertinent to the discussion. There are no notability guidelines according presumptive notability to any non-elected government civil servant at any level, regardless of the positions he or she can claim, period. Ravenswing 13:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@NeverTry4Me:, what in any of this discussion gives you the frankly bizarre idea anyone is asking for personal details of this person's life? No matter what their past or present positions, notability requires coverage that is simply not demonstrated. Neither WP:COMMONSENSE nor some notion of inherent notability are escape causes from this basic requirement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Draftify or possibly Delete, if that is a valid combination. I think is should never have been removed from draft. NeverTry4Me, who used to be Arunudoy was desperate to get it into mainspace, and I thought at the time that it wasn't ready for it. I thought and still do, that several months should have been used to build the sources, look for suitable newspaper articles on the subject to strengthen the article. And that could still take place. But Ravenswing's and Eggishorn's are very strong here and a useful indication of its current state. I think it should be drafted. If that is not suitable, delete it. scope_creep 13:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - normally, I would have no issue with draftifying, however, due to the article creator's behavior, I do not believe that is a suitable option in this instance. Onel5969 20:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Now I do not have any objection on Draftify, as I have learned some from this discussion. I will expand, modify with WP:SEC as I am getting some sources through Yahoo, Bing, and Yandex searches than Google. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 21:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
disruption by sock, article creator
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment He was just an ADGP . Check that link, please. So many ADGPs are there for different branches. We don't need separate article for everyone. You can mention them in Assam Police page as official or former official only (that to not needed IMHO). GeezGod (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • CommentThis is a common mistake made by newspapers. In each state police force, there should be only one DGP. Note: Even special DGPs are equivalent to ADGPs. The current list of key officials is as follows:

GeezGod (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment, again you are repeating mistakes in comments. IDENT, please note, IDENT. As per your say, 'common mistakes' by major Indian newspapers? That is not a valid comment. Are you into journalism? If so, then please edit your COIN and improve the articles. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh God! His designation as DGP was misquoted in the news over what I said. He was an ADGP and Special DGP with no notable coverage or specialisation. No more comments. I'm tired. GeezGod (talk) 09:53, 14 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 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 procedural close. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Pallab Bhattacharyya (IPS)

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

Notability concerns have been expressed and creator has chosen to request testing at XfD rather than AfC which may have a slightly lower bar. Not fit for mainspace as is but position(s) may be sufficient to confer notability, though normally such positions will generate RS which are certainly not well leveraged into the article and not suitability wikilinked. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

*Comment: Between opening the Twinkle XfD and publishing the nomination the page was moved and this will need a procedural close. Please do not comment here. I thought I'd checked for this but got distracted. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Will be going though manual procedure at WP:AFDCLOSE. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:22, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per consensus, article improvement. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Raymond Argentin

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

Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage; none is provided in the article and none was discovered in a WP:BEFORE search, which included a search of Gallica.

There is a minor description of him in his Olympedia entry, but it doesn't appear to constitute significant coverage, being limited to a summary of his competition history.

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete The only sources that have been identified are truly comprehensive databases of all Olympians. We have ruled that only medalists are default notable for participation in the Olympics, so unless we can find sources that would constitute passing GNG this article needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong keep – I've expanded the article using sources from Google. There is still room for further expansion. Important to note that Argentin wasn't just a one-time Olympian who finished in 4th place, he was the national champion in his sport. For that reason, I believe he comfortably passes notability guidelines. I will continue to look for sources, but I imagine he will get several expansive write-ups upon his death, which will easily bulk up his article beyond its current state. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep This looks like a WP:BEFORE-fail. Schwede66 20:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment @Schwede66: I've reviewed the sources, and none of them constitute significant coverage. The independent coverage in Alpes and Midi of Argentin consists of a single paragraph of statistical information Raymond Argentin was born in 1924 in Champigny/Marne. In 1948, at the age of 24, he was selected to compete in the London Games in canoe kayak 1 place over 10,000 m. Entered the French team that year he remained there until 1950. In 48 he won his 1st French Championship, which he won 3 times, in 1,000 m, in 1949, he won the 1,000 and 10,000 m. This athlete progressed quickly because he did not discover single-seater canoeing until 1942, while the coverage in le Courrier du Pay de Retz is just An association that constitutes the living memory of the discipline, whose oldest member is Raymond Argentin, who made 4e at the London Olympics in 1948, and the most recent Tony Estanguet. Sports Reference and Olympedia are databases, while "List of Oldest Living Olympians" appears to both be an unreliable source and its coverage of him, being a list entry, is not significant. Finally, "The 1948 Olympics: How London Rescued the Games" consists of a single line where Argentin's result in the Canadian singles 10,000 metres is listed, which is again not significant. BilledMammal (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Accomplishments (national championship victories and international tournaments) suggest that there would be sufficient contemporary reports on this individual if we had access to French sources of the period. While notability is not based on theoretical sources, those that have been provided thus far should be sufficient to keep the article. Canadian Paul 22:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Canadian Paul (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
    See Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources, which appears to be what you are arguing. BilledMammal (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment – rather conveniently, you've chosen to ignore the fact, pointed out by CP and myself, that this individual wasn't just a 4th place Olympian, but indeed a national champion in their respective sport, rendering your WP:NOLYMPICS argument redundant... --Jkaharper (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
They might have been a national champion, but that doesn't establish notability or even the presumption of notability. BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Jkaharper and Canadian Paul. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the source assessment above. A semi-interview in a local magazine is not particularly compelling as SIGCOV, and we would need multiple such sources anyway. I'd also note that primary sources should only be used to support uncontroversial facts, so material from an interview, unless covered elsewhere, should be extremely limited in a biography as it has not been demonstrated to be DUE and encyclopedic. The "oldest living Olympians" ref is a statistical database, and absent sources discussing it, his "being real old" is also not DUE. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Despite not medaliing in the Olympics, Argentin did compete in the Olympics. Thanks to contributor Jkaharper for finding out more information and expanding it on the French canoeist. Chris (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 11:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some numerical traction in favour of keeping the article, but the charge that the subject does not meet GNG has not yet been refuted convincingly. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 23:20, 11 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz 06:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Flame of Passion

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM, as only 1 source cited, that is no more than a catalog listing, and no others found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Silverman, Sime (1915-11-05). "Flame of Passion". Variety. Vol. 40, no. 10. p. 22. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Internet Archive.

      The film review was published in 1915 so is in the public domain. The film review notes:

      The "Flame of Passion" feature film is in five reels, a Terris Film Co. picture, with Tom Terris the director, scenario writer and principal player of it. Next to Mr. Terris, in point of important acting, is Elaine Terris, a voluptuous, handsome woman, who admirably suits the character assigned her, that of a southern enchantress, coached by her lover to entangle a northern and lead him to his ruin, with death preferred after that for the young man from the north. Most of the scenes were taken in Jamaica, and some remarkably pretty landscapes are shown. In its exterior views the "Flame of Passion" appears to be a travelog of the Island of Jamaica, but as these scenes are neatly interwoven into the story, they become merely backgrounds for the players or the action. The tale is dramatic, of the northerner in love with a girl of his own city, going somewhat wild and leaving for Jamaica, where he had been left a fortune, which greatly angered the dead man's friend down there, the latter being willed the estate if the northerner died. It is to accomplish that death by inciting a passion in the northerner for his mistress that the Jamaican connived with his girl to ensnare the northern fellow. Jealousy spoiled the plan, however, as it had about reached its fulfillment. The northerner's sweetheart also went to Jamaica to save him, when the villain fell in love with and kidnapped her, his unfaithfulness to his "girl" bringing about a battle between them in which the girl was killed. Her death released the northerner from her thrall, he rescuing his sweetheart, and they returning home ot be wed. The progress of passion is somewhat vividly brought out through the blandishments and languidness of the adventuress, also the susceptibility of the northern young man, but Miss Terris is the mould of a woman in this feature that almost anyone might be excused for ardently admiring. Some of the scenes are extremeley well set. One was a fire at sea, Mr. Terris utilizing the boat and crew he traveled with to Jamaica, to neatly work out his make-believe, even to the launching of a life boat. A couple of "dreams" had fantastic ideas brought out in film form, and the mob scenes of colored people in Jamaica attending services of "The Magic Man" or Voodoo were extraordinarily well manipulated, considering the calibre of "super" the director had to handle. The minor faults of the film are not big enough to dwell upon. Renzi de Cordova looked the role of the villain and played it as well. Marguerite Hanley was the sweetheart, with little to do. John G. Haas attended to the photography. He ofttimes did daring work, such as catching the principals climbing over the rapids at a great heighth, also going down the rapids with them on low flat boats. The "Flame of Passion," as a five-reel release, has enough in it to hold, and can fit on a program. Mr. Terris took sufficient care of each department he was concerned in to guarantee that. His was very capable work throughout.

    2. Langman, Larry (1998). American Film Cycles: The Silent Era. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p. 349. ISBN 0-313-30657-5. ISSN 0742-6933. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

      The book notes: "Some early vampire dramas focused more on the element of greed than on lust, making the work more of a crime film. Villainous Renzi de Cordova plots with Southern adventuress Elaine Terriss to ruin a Northerner in Tom Terriss's romantic drama, Flame of Passion (1915), set chiefly on the island of Jamaica. Tom Terriss, the intended victim, has inherited an estate in Jamaica and journeys there to settle business matters. Cordova, who is next in line to inherit the property in the event of Terriss's death, want to see his rival's destruction. Terriss immediately falls for the charms of the adventuress. Meanwhile his fiancée, Marguerite Hanley, hears about his affair and joins him in Jamaica to rescue him from the vampire's clutches. Cordova's scheme backfires when he becomes infatuated with the fiancée and kidnaps her for his own lust. His jealous lover intervenes and a struggle between them ends in the vampire's death. Terriss, now freed of the adventuress's hold on him, rescues his fiancée and they both leave for home to marry.

    3. "At the Star". Sioux City Journal. 1917-03-18. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article was published in 1917 so is in the public domain. The article notes: "The "Flame of Passion" will be shown today at the Star. William Lanyon, a West Indian planter, dies and leaves all of his estate to his nephew, Dick Lorient, a New York society rounder, who is engaged to be married to his cousin, Dulcie Lanyon. Dick leaves to inspect his property, and John Stark, the overseer, to whom the estate has been left in the event of Dick's death, conspires to gain possession of the property. In Jamaica, Dick meets the "Woman," and in the flame of passion, passes through rushing waters and fires of hell. How he escapes the siren's deadly fascination and the villainous scheming of Stark is depicted."

    4. "Columbia". Dayton Daily News. 1915-10-16. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article was published in 1915 so is in the public domain. The article notes: "Mr. Tom Terrlss, recently seen at the Columbia In "The Pursuing Shallow," will he presented tomorrow and Monday at the Columbia in his latest and greatest success, "Flame of Passion," in five acts. The popularity attained by Mr. Terriss through his wonderful acting in the pictures that he has thus far been seen in at the Columbia, is a sufficient guarantee of crowded houses when he is presented in this, his latest picture. The synopsis of "Flame of Passion" follows: William Lanyon, a West Indian planter, dies and leaves all of his estate to his nephew, Dick Lorient, a New York society rounder, who Is en-gaged to be married to his cousin, Dulcie Lanyon. Dick leaves to inspect his property and John Stark, the overseer, to whom the estate has been been left in the event of Dick's death, conspires to gain possession of the property. In Jamaica Dick meets the "Woman," and in the Flame of Passion passes through rushing waters and fires of hell. How he escapes the siren's deadly fascination and the villainous scheming of Stark Is depicted herein"

    5. "Flame of Passion barred". Billboard. Vol. 27, no. 45. 1915-11-06. p. 54. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Internet Archive.

      The article was published in 1915 so is in the public domain. The article notes:

      Flame of Passion Barred

      New York, Oct. 29—The Flame of Passion, the first of the Terriss Film Corporation feature motion pictures taken in the superb surroundings of the West Indies Islands, has been barred by the censors of Pennsylvania, on the ground that they are immoral. Since these films were passed by the National Board of Censors and the New York authorities, and since there is nothing in them to compare with the daring exhibited in the numerous vampire films heretofore readily passed by the Pennsylvanians, Terriss is of the impression that perhaps the title offended the critics. He is, however, going to fight the decision in the courts, as he has these films extensively booked through the Keystone State and will suffer considerable loss should the showing be canceled.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Flame of Passion to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion / agreement as to whether sources found justify having a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 11:55, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Mohazzabul Lughat India

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

This might be a nice encyclopedia for sure but there exists hardly any coverage. I was able to locate one Urdu article on Adbi Miras by Mahzar Raza entitled Lughat-nigari ke chand Masail aur Muhazzabul Lughat, (Some issues pertaining to lexicography and the Muhazzabul Lughat) but I hesitate calling Adbi Miras a reliable source. This article has remained unsourced/unexpanded since last ten years and there aren't any available sources that could help it remain here. Comments! ─ The Aafī 10:50, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Andy Moule

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

Barely scrapes past WP:NFOOTY with one substitute appearance in a fully professional league, but can't find any evidence of him playing football at any level at all otherwise. Absolutely no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Or redirect to 1994–95 Dundee United F.C. season. GiantSnowman 18:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - He meets NFootball (just), but lacks notability. I recall he got a bit of coverage at the time as a young player making his debut for Dundee United in the top flight. However he never appeared for the first team again (not even the following season in the Challenge Cup when several other young players made one or two appearances). There seems to be an Andy Moule who played in the Juniors for Culter F.C. later in the 1990s, but I have no idea if it is the same individual and in any case would not help make a case for him being notable. I think this is a fairly clear cut case if we are going to avoid having every footballer who played for a few minutes in a top division game having an article. Dunarc (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons given above. I am not sure if he is a plausible enough search term to require a redirect either. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:02, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The Nine Lives of Christmas

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

No more notable now than it was when it was redirected a year ago. The WP:BEFORE I did then showed no RSes and at least this recreated article has one. The others are either discussions of a book (I did not read them to determine if the book was the basis of the film or written after it) or blogs, or lists. Fails notability criteria. I have no objections to restoring the redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Fair enough, at this point it's up to the closing admin. I'd also like to note to the closing admin that I was previously one of the people who argued for a delete in the last AfD. The search deities must have been kinder on this film this time around, while I was looking for sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep -- as it currently stands, this seem sufficient to indicate notability. Some Hallmark movies indeed don't get any media coverage, but that is not the case with this one. matt91486 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:OSE. If there are other Hallmark movies that need to have their articles deleted, we can arrange for that. The sources do not help the article meet . Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't see how OSE is applicable here. I was very clearly differentiating this piece from the various Hallmark movie articles that have gone through AFD in the past several months. And clearly we disagree on these sources being applicable for meeting the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Sourcing is good enough for WP:GNG as there has been enough independent coverage. Maybe not as in-depth as the nominator would like, but that's the purpose of these discussions, to offer differing sides and let an admin make the ultimate decision. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:47, 4 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 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 multiple results. There's consensus that lists of postal codes are not encyclopedic, but the topic of postal codes in a given country might be. As such I'm deleting all the articles that begin "List of...", and keeping the rest; but if any others remain problematic lists after sufficient opportunity for cleanup, renomination might be appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

List of postal codes in Egypt

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, following this just-closed AfD , I'm listing this article and some others that are either a) just a list of postal codes, or b) just a list of postal codes and a map. asilvering (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

List of postal codes in Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Postal codes in Myanmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Postal codes in Vietnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Postal codes in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Postal codes in Bhutan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Postal codes in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Postal codes in Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Postal codes in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of postal codes in Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of postal codes in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of postcodes in Brunei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of postal codes in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of postal codes in Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of postal codes in the Czech Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete all the "list of" articles and keep the other ones. Since I think there's potential for there to be encyclopedic articles about the history of postal codes in certain places. Just not in list form and they should be referenced, which these articles don't currently seem to be, but I'm going to assume good faith for now that there are references out there. Although, I encourage the nominator to re-nominate the articles in a few months if nothing useful about the topic materializes. In the meantime though I think the list articles can at least be safely deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Straightforward cases of NOTDIRECTORY/NOTDATABASE. Avilich (talk) 18:09, 14 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz 06:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

TechRaptor

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

This article doesnt show the notability of the site. Some sources are from the website and reads like a promotional for it. GamerPro64 05:16, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. or really, Keep/Merge as there is emerging consensus that this could be included within Sarasota's district or Booker herself especially with the added information from Cunard et al. What there isn't is consensus to delete any of this content, and where it should live can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 03:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Amending for clarity, emphasis on the could. I leave further discussion on whether it happens and where to interested editors. Star Mississippi 15:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Emma E. Booker Elementary School

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

Should be merged into Sarasota, Florida as we do for other schools. It doesn't appear that the school is independently notable beyond the events of 9/11. Rockstone 02:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Articles not related to President George W. Bush being at the school when he made his first public comments about the September 11 attacks:
      1. Harger, Cindy (1993-02-24). "Budget cuts could kill modified school". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "Emma E. Booker Elementary School might have the county's first 11-month curriculum this fall, but state budget cuts could kill the plan. Since September, Booker Elementary School officials, staff and parents have brainstormed a plan to add 24 days to the school calendar and to spread summer vacation time throughout the year into shorter, more frequent breaks."

      2. McKinnon, Ryan (2019-04-01). "Booker students get fired up for state testing". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "Cheers from a a screaming throng of students and a steady stream of pump-up music could be heard from the parking lot of Emma E. Booker Elementary School Monday afternoon. ... It was the third, fourth and fifth graders, who will begin taking state tests on Tuesday, which were the object of all the commotion. With months of preparation and practice behind them, Tuesday is game day for testing, and Booker Elementary did what you do before a big game: They held a raucous pep rally."

      3. Frederick, Lisa (2010-11-23). "School provides a fun time to families". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "Students showed off their scientific minds while spending quality family time at Emma E. Booker Elementary School as part of the school's 10th annual Family Fun Night."

      4. Reiter, Keramet A. (2000-06-16). "Booker benefits from longer year". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "Students at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota go to school 196 days a year, instead of 180. The extra 16 days of class mean that the school's 700 students have a scant six weeks of summer; they will return July 31. But neither students nor faculty seem to mind."

      5. Webb, Shelby (2015-05-01). "Live: LeVar Burton in Sarasota". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "Kafale Rivers could feel his knees shaking when he walked into Emma E. Booker Elementary's media center. ... Despite his preparation, Kafale, 11, was sheepish when he met actor and early learning advocate LeVar Burton."

      6. Nagata, Kazuaki (2007-06-10). "Young authors honored at Booker". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "Twenty-four young authors from second through fifth grade showed off their creativity and were honored May 10 at Emma E. Booker Elementary School."

      7. Harger, Cindy (1992-11-13). "Enthusiasm rising for year-round school". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "Parents, teachers and administrators have high hopes that Emma E. Booker Elementary School will be the district's first year-round school."

      8. Gilpin, Francis (1990-12-19). "Parents question discipline - Slap results in teacher transfer". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "Two parents question the accuracy of information issued Tuesday by Sarasota County school officials about alleged mistreatment of two children at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School last week."

      9. Gilpin, Francis (1990-11-13). "Teacher discipline concerns leaders". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "Sarasota County school officials are under pressure from black activists for the second time in a week to reverse a decision at their new Emma E. Booker Elementary School."

      10. Gilpin, Francis (1990-11-10). "Blacks say school color flap dilutes history". The Tampa Times. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "The white principal and PTA president at the new Emma E. Booker Elementary haven't been true to their school, a group of black parents and activists say."

      11. Allen-Jones, Allen (2005-08-12). "Booker literacy project aims to improve kids' reading scores". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "Students at Emma E. Booker Elementary School have tested strong in math and writing on the FCAT exam, but weak in their reading skills."

    2. Articles about President George W. Bush being at the school when he made his first public comments about the September 11 attacks:
      1. Roland, James (2002-09-12). "Sarasota elementary school marks place in history". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "More than 80 percent of its students are on free or reduced lunches and Booker has earned a C grade from the state for the last few years. Yet it was at this "average" school populated with many children from struggling families that President Bush arrived on Sept. 11, 2001, to talk about his education initiative, "No Child Left Behind." And it was here, surrounded by students and teachers, where Bush first learned that America was under attack by terrorists. It was from a microphone at Booker that the world first heard Bush call for peace."

      2. Babiarz, Liz (2006-09-12). "Bush addresses students". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "President George W. Bush told students at Emma E. Booker Elementary School that he will always remember being with them during the Sept. 11 attacks five years ago. ... He recalled sitting in Room 301 at the school, listening to Sandra Daniels' second-grade class read from "The Pet Goat" when his former chief of staff whispered to him, "America is under attack" after the second plane hit the World Trade Center."

      3. Binette, Chad (2002-05-31). "Booker creates 9/11 memorial exhibit". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "Emma E. Booker Elementary School students recall getting out of bed early and going through metal detectors. They were eager to hear President Bush talk about reading and to shake his hand.  ... Booker Elementary is creating an exhibit with memories of that fateful day. The display in the office features two scrapbooks by students, pictures taken by White House photographers and a thank-you note to the school from President Bush."

      4. Barker, Tim (2006-08-24). "Bush visit on 9-11 changed their lives". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

        The article notes: "Wednesday was a day for several of those students, along with their former teacher, to get back together at Emma E. Booker Elementary School and talk about the upcoming fifth anniversary of the terror attacks. It was part media circus, part catharsis, as the group sat in front of cameras and talked with reporters about that September morning and how it changed their lives."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Emma E. Booker Elementary School to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm not seeing any "significant coverage" of the school from the references Cunard provided. Most (or all) of them are local, trivial, and WP:MILL coverage. The 8 articles about George Bush being there in particular are clearly because of and about George Bush, not the school. Literally any school George Bush went to and made statements about 911 at would have been covered in the news. Just like every ice cream shop in America that Joe Biden buys an ice cream cone from gets mentioned in news articles, Etc. Etc. The places don't matter, the person who is visiting them does. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Emma E. Booker Elementary School is a non-profit educational institution which is required to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline. There is no requirement for the references to be non-local or non-WP:MILL but it has received plenty of coverage that is non-WP:MILL. Emma E. Booker Elementary School has received significant coverage in the regional newspaper The Tampa Tribune about its 11-month curriculum. In addition to the George W. Bush coverage, the school has received significant coverage about the plans for it to become "the district's first year-round school", students doing state testing, and events it puts on. That this school has received sustained significant coverage over several decades strongly establishes it is notable.

    Cunard (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Ignore the non-local coverage part of what I said, there still isn't significant, in-depth coverage in multiple sources. One reason as I'm sure you know is that multiple stories from a single outlet only counts as one reference. So the fact that The Tampa Tribune did 15 news stories about it doesn't really matter, since it's only a single reference. Outside of that though from what I can tell the stories are not significant coverage anyway. Like the first one is about how they might have the county's first 11-month curriculum, but then maybe not because of state budget cuts. Beyond just being purely based on speculation most of it is about the state budget issues. Not the school. To pick one more, there's "Teacher discipline concerns leaders". Which is literally just about an assistant superintendent deciding if they are going to punish a white school teacher for making a derisive remark about a black pupil. Again, the article is purely based on speculation and doesn't discuss the school directly or in-depth. So right there is two news articles that don't even discuss the school except in an extremely superficial way and based purely on speculation. "Blacks say school color flap dilutes history" is much of the same. As well as being an interview. "Booker benefits from longer year" starts out by interviewing a third grader and goes on to discuss the school adding 16 days to the semester, "Jamese Bryant, a fifth-grader, said he likes being in school because he gets to spend time with his friends. "I want short summers," Jamese said." Maybe there is no non-WP:MILL requirement, but I'm sure you would agree that Jamese wanting shorter summers isn't really in-depth, significant, direct coverage of the school. Let alone notability providing content for an article about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
There is significant coverage in two publications: the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and The Tampa Tribune.

I do not agree that the 1993 article "Budget cuts could kill modified school" is not primarily about the school. Of the 485-word article, only 99 words are not directly about the school. The article discusses the plan to extend the school year and how it would affect the students. The 2000 article "Booker benefits from longer year" from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune was published after the plan to extend the school year was implemented. It contains extensive discussion of the school:

Students at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota go to school 196 days a year, instead of 180. The extra 16 days of class mean that the school's 700 students have a scant six weeks of summer; they will return July 31. But neither students nor faculty seem to mind.

...

In the spring and the fall, just before seasonal vacations, teachers spend eight days on intensive, theme-based curricula focusing on such topics as medieval times, the ocean or recycling. The sessions give students a reprieve from the traditional reading, writing and math classes, offering field trips and fun projects.

...

The school has had a 196-day school year for seven years, but the calendar has been emphasized more recently because of Emma E.'s difficulty in raising test scores to average levels. This year the school has radically changed its curriculum to focus on reading and writing in every subject and to introduce skills necessary for tests as early as possible.

The 1990 article "Blacks say school color flap dilutes history" also provides extensive coverage of the school:

Freshly embossed Bulldog T-shirts, which cost the PTA its entire $1,200 treasury, have been discarded -- in belated recognition by the school's new administration of Booker's rich legacy as a center of education and progress for Sarasota's black community. The principal at the new Booker, which inherited the title of a longtime Newtown grammar school named for Sarasota County's first black principal, said he didn't realize the switch would strike such a raw nerve.

...

Enrollment at the new Booker is more than four times that of the old 260-pupil Booker, which closed as a grammar school last June and became part of the Booker Middle and High school complex on Orange Avenue North. Many of the new Booker pupils are white and live in north Sarasota County subdivisions between Interstate 75 and Sarasota Bay, said Fitz-Harris. The new Booker has a 55 percent black student body.

...

The school's recently formed and predominantly white PTA decided in October to conduct a vote among pupils to determine if they wanted to keep the purple- and-gold Tornado of the old Booker -- or to choose a new mascot and school colors from a list provided.

The sources discuss the school's history, its curriculum, its mascot and school colors, its school year length, and its controversies. There is more than enough information to meet Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to how you define the word "significant." For me it means "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention." Which I wouldn't consider things like school colors, how many weeks their semesters are, or some teacher "maybe" getting reprimanded for calling a student a guerilla. All schools have have "controversies", school colors, and school semesters go for a particular amount of time with literally every school. So there's nothing "important or worthy of attention" about any of that. Going by some of the things you've mentioned in this other AfDs though it seems like you have zero bar on the lower end for what qualifies as significant coverage and your definition of "significant" is literally anything. Like there could be a trivial local news story about someone graffitiing a penis on a school bathroom wall and you'd be arguing with me about why that is an important thing, something we should all be paying attention, and is therefore worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages and proves the school is notable. You might as well throw out the whole concept of significant coverage at that point, let alone notability. Even if you disagree though, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is clear that Misplaced Pages is not a "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." Things like school color, mascot, and basic historical information like what year the school was founded, are the epitome of simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Especially when it comes to Elementary Schools. I'm sure you'd have some convoluted reason why something that's literally just "the schools colors are green and blue" has contextual information and encyclopedic merit though, but again at that point you might as well just say to hell with significant coverage and notability as concepts in the first. Personally I think a better route would be for you to admit you have zero or almost non-existing standards, me to say I have some, and for us to not get in these discussions anymore. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline and Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools do not define "significant" as meaning "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention". As defined in Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, "significant coverage" means:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Discussion about a school's history, its curriculum, its mascot and school colors, its school year length, and its controversies "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" so the school does meet the guideline. The coverage in these sources is not about "someone graffitiing a penis on a school bathroom wall" which by itself would not establish notability. The coverage about the school colors is about a very serious topic: It involves race in the United States and what activists say is the "purg the school of its historical identity":

Principal Brian Fitz-Harris canceled the display when blacks protested a decision to change the purple-and-gold Booker Tornado to a red-and-black Bulldog after more than 50 years.

Freshly embossed Bulldog T-shirts, which cost the PTA its entire $1,200 treasury, have been discarded -- in belated recognition by the school's new administration of Booker's rich legacy as a center of education and progress for Sarasota's black community. ... But black activist Ed James II said the switch was intended as a first step by Fitz-Harris and PTA President Susan Rogers to purge the school of its historical identity.

Cunard (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Where have I ever said that for something to be non-trivial it has to be the main topic of the source material? Obviously significant coverage is beyond a trivial mention and below the subject being the main topic of the article, but it's ridiculous to act like "Emma E. Booker Elementary School's mascot is a ferret" is a automatically significant coverage "because it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" or whatever. As far as the thing about the "activists", I think that it might be worth mentioning as a part of a broader article on racial discrimination in the school system, but it would be undue weight if that's solely what the article is based on. Not to mention probably create an attack article. It doesn't do the subject or readers of Misplaced Pages any just to have an article that is just about how some teachers of the school said some borderline racist crap. Maybe if it could be shown to be a broader, systemic issue, but there's zero evidence that is the case. Otherwise, we are just slandering a single teacher for saying something stupid and like the school supports that type of behavior when they don't. Outside of that I don't really care about an "activists" opinion, whatever that means. There is no clause in the notability guidelines that something is notable if there's a controversy involving it and "activists" aren't experts in anything. So their opinions are less then worthless, at least as far as this process goes. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that happening to be the school that Bush was at on 9/11 isn't enough to define its significance. What *does* surprise me, though, is that there is no article for Emma E. Booker herself. The school, a normal elementary school as far as I can tell, is unremarkable but Booker herself has an interesting story. The first paragraph of this article is about her, and I have just added her to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women in Red, especially since this is Black History Month. Lamona (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
"Thanks. Having an article for Emma E. Booker is a good idea. Perhaps we can just mention the school there if one gets created before the AfD is closed. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The issue here is there's a Booker High School and a Booker Middle School - all within Newtown. There is a definite article to be made with Emma E. Booker here. There's also a lot of context here with segregation and school integration with these schools for the Sarasota metropolitan area. As I mentioned below, people have held onto the idea that this school is known on a national level because of Bush and 9/11. – The Grid (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
IMO you could maybe argue that the topic of segregation and school integration in Florida is a notable topic that an article on could include a mention of these schools in, I don't think that means these specific schools are notable on their own though. Especially not if the articles are based purely on the segregation issue. Outside of that I'd be interested to know which people have held onto the idea that this school is known on a national level because of Bush and 9/11 and how them holding onto that "idea" equates to notability.
The idea that the school is known nationally because of Bush and 9/11 is laughable anyway. I bet most people off the street can't tell you what school Bush discussed 9/11 at. Even people from Florida. It's an extremely obscure fact that literally no one cares about or remembers at this point. Probably not even a good percentage of people in Newtown. Honestly, the same goes for 9/11 in general. I was in a college class a few years ago and a good number of the students in the class didn't even know what 9/11 was when the teacher brought it up. So I doubt most people know about this school in relation to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I get what you are saying to a degree but Sarasota County seems central to some of events leading up to 9/11. Two of the hijackers did their training in Venice at Huffman Aviation. Obviously, the focus of any article shouldn't be a coatrack for another event. I see the elementary school article to at least have improvements on notability. – The Grid (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Hhhmmm, I wasn't aware that two of the high jackers had trained in the area. It's an interesting side fact, but as far as I know George Bush being at the school that day was pre-planned and had nothing to do with the high jackers. He didn't even know about the World Trade Centers being attacked until he was already there. So I doubt the visit had anything to do with the high jackers or anything related to 9/11. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment -- all of the evidence provided that this school is independently notable would support articles on other run-of-the-mill elementary schools, which we don't do. -- Rockstone 05:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Schooloutcomes suggests we should delete this article, full stop. It is an elemntary school. That it gets mentioned in a local article about children about to take state tests, that the President of the US happened to choose to make a visit here, which would have gotten virtually no coverage except for unrelated events that happened while the president was at this location, and a few other routine coverage examples do not make this institution notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    The first point is Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body).
    Where are you getting the suggestion they get deleted? – The Grid (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    Would you not consider merging the article a form of deletion? The point is that this article page should not exist. -- Rockstone 02:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    Absolutely not, a merge is an alternative to deletion. Your point has really not been expanded since the start of the AfD and please note you suggested a merge versus deletion. – The Grid (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep thanks to the sources shared by Cuanrd. WP:MILL is just an essay and can easily be countered by WP:NOTPAPER. Passes WP:GNG. I don't think merging the content here into the already lengthy Sarasota, Florida article would benefit our readers. Better to keep it easily to find and read on a seperate article. NemesisAT (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    If we had to merge the content or a possible ATD, Sarasota County Public Schools is probably the better target but the current article is a list of schools. – The Grid (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Fundamentally, the subject meets WP:GNG. There are many boring articles on Misplaced Pages that I don't like! Suriname0 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep As per WP:GNG and common sense. If the school that George Bush was at during the September 11 attacks, which received lots of international attention, doesn't confer notability, what can?  DiscantX 08:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I added one more source, which I don't believe was in Cunard's list. There is enough coverage outside of Bush and the September 11 attacks that can give the school notability. This article has better sourcing and notability than so many Misplaced Pages articles that it's almost laughable that it was brought to AFD.  DiscantX 09:00, 10 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anyone interested in a draftspace copy may contact me on my talk page, and I will provide one in the understanding that clearer evidence of notability will be required before recreation in mainspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Project K (film)

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

This film has not had a notable production and isn't planned for release until 2023. Should be deleted as this is WP:TOOSOON DonaldD23 talk to me 02:45, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Grace Polit

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. I can't find any reliable sources for this person beyond their personal website. The author of this article created one article Grace Polit WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:13, 3 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Game Prattana

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

The available sources there is YouTube. Reading Beans 20:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Draftify. The current article is not suitable for Misplaced Pages. Youtube is one thing, but the article has several references to Facebook and Instagram as well. This is simply not good enough. Draftifying will give ample time to sort this out, since the topic seems like it may have notability. Geschichte (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I also think draftification encapsules all the prior comments/wishes from other discussion participants. Geschichte (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I generally do not think draftifying is a good solution. An article will see more chance of improvement in Mainspace, and should remain there unless there are major policy concerns. The Facebook references are to a page reporting on TV ratings. Thai organizations often use Facebook pages as a web host, so citing them should not be a problem in itself as long the source is reputable (though I have not been able to confirm this for the specific case). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to see if GNG compliant sourcing can be identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:35, 11 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz 06:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Raúl Martín (bishop)

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

Zero citations since its creation in 2013. Fails GNG & NBIO. A BEFORE check shows the man exists, but only basic/brief mentions and no depth of coverage required to pass notability standards. Misplaced Pages is not a directory. Platonk (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Says the editor who for eight years (including today) still hasn't added a single citation to the article while presenting a blank DuckDuckGo search result and a link to a single interview (a primary source). Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. Where's the beef? Platonk (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does being a bishop confer automatic notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Besides the three sources at eswiki a simple quick search reveals plenty of independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage in Spanish. Examples: La Información, LaPampaNoticias, La Prensa, etc. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:35, 5 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz 06:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Siti Networks

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

Only one merger reference, notability or importance not proven. Greatder (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep, this is one of the four major distribution companies in the Indian market since the inception of private broadcasting and there is abundant sourcing available for it. The state of an article is not relevant to whether a topic is notable, please consider searching before nominating an article for deletion. Here's a small sample of academic sources that have provided it with significant coverage.

  • Mishra, Shashi Shekhar; Roy, Sanjit Kumar (2017). "Case Study 5". In Adhikari, Atanu; Roy, Sanjit Kumar (eds.). Strategic Marketing Cases in Emerging Markets. Springer International Publishing. pp. 61–78. ISBN 978-3-319-51545-8.
  • Panda, Brahmadev; Rao, P. H. (Jan 2012). "Corporate Restructuring: Demerging Impact". SCMS Journal of Indian Management. 9 (1). School of Communication and Management Studies: 8–9. SSRN 2782754.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  • Parthasarathi, V.; Amanullah, A.; Koshy, Susan (2016). "Digitalization as formalization: a view from below". International Journal of Digital Television. 9 (2). Intellect: 163–166. doi:10.1386/JDTV.7.2.155_1.
  • Liu, Chun; Jayakar, Krishna (2012). "The evolution of telecommunications policy-making: Comparative analysis of China and India". Telecommunications Policy. 36 (1). Elsevier: 19. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2011.11.016. ISSN 0308-5961.

Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Your sources look pretty reliable. I generally search the google news tab to find notability and since that tab was dry as well as the article, I raised the AfD. I don't know how to close it as keep though so I guess someone else will have to do that. Greatder (talk) 02:47, 10 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.