Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< April 14 April 16 >

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 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 23:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jatibarang Brebes Sugar Mill[edit]

Jatibarang Brebes Sugar Mill (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 significant coverage and the article is unreferenced. The Indonesian Wikipedia article is very long, but unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the correlated 'nearby' information in items such as Banjaratma_Heritage_Rest_Area gives a good idea of what can be done with former sugar factory information into current conditions - also Lucas's fieldwork was nearby as well which would provide background. The last paragraph of the article is ethnographically interesting, most of the historical information would be best in the Jatibarang article. However to the unititiated there are more than one jatibarang in java - there is one in Brebes, and another in Semarang, no doubt others as well. JarrahTree 01:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Martyr's Memorial C-Division League[edit]

2021 Martyr's Memorial C-Division League (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 Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete struggling to find notability as per WP:NSPORTS, not finding any significant news footage covering the division other than listing out teams advancing to a certain division. Heart (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough significant sources to pass notability. Spkabil (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Martyr's Memorial C-Division League[edit]

2016 Martyr's Memorial C-Division League (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 Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for a Soft Deletion so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - can't find anything to say that this meets WP:GNG. It should be deleted without prejudice to recreation if someone with more experience of Nepalese sources is able to justify the article through significant coverage which nobody to date has been able to find. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and the subject is not notable. Spmilan (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. may be notable per the charting hit, but as per nom and Scope, we do not have the sourcing to validate an article. Between the PROD, prior AfD and two relists, it does not appear sourcing exists. Star Mississippi 01:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pink Project (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)

Article completely consists of database / unreliable sources. BUT, as mentioned at the previous AfD, they did have a song that charted, which fulfills criteria #2 at WP:MUSICBIO. But, according to WP:MUSICBIO, musicians "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria", and the musician only fulfills one. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 21:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least one == one. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete The name is quite common, but even with that I can't find anything substantial in terms of coverage to support the article. They were barely even with the hit. This is the 3rd time its been at Afd. If its no-concensus, it will be copyedited right down to a stub as the current references don't support an article. scope_creepTalk 21:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Pasierb[edit]

Stephen J. Pasierb (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 sources and a quick internet search reveal no independent sources of any depth. Also, I strongly suspect conflict of interest issues with the two primary authors:

  1. User:CleMad only edited articles related to Partnership to End Addiction's senior leadership
  2. User:Thermanator only edited this article. Daask (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Inadequate sourcing. As written fails to establish notability in any capacity. WP:GNG not met. NiklausGerard (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Hollings[edit]

Alfred Hollings (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 and WP:NSPORT; played seven matches in the twenties, but otherwise has no claim to significance. BilledMammal (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to. The onus is on you; and you are also required to alert the article creator about an AfD. I have informed Lugnuts. Good night. NGS Shakin' All Over 22:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep the article the onus is also on you; my search of NZ Newspaper Archives turned up nothing, and now you need to provide evidence that WP:GNG is met. And I did not notify Lugnuts because he has asked that I not do so. BilledMammal (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you say your search of Papers Past turned up "nothing", do you literally mean nothing? Because I reckon I have passing references - at university, his marriage and then probably working in the legal profession by 1945 - with a firm with his name in the title. He very definitely appears in match reports (try Hollings cricket wellington and restrict the search to the period between 1925 and 1932ish) - opened the batting against a touring Auckland side in early 1926 for example. There's nothing (yet) of the sort of in depth coverage that I'd be looking for, (e2a: but, for clarity, not just in scorecards - he's discussed as an "outstanding" batsman or in "fine form", for example) but there's more than nothing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the search I suggest above throws up, oh, more than 1,500 articles - there will be obvious syndication as usual at this point, so some are duplicates. Not all of them contain gems, but, for example this one has a little more. The problem is that frankly I don't have the time to go through them all and the snippet view won't show enough to know if you have to click or not. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Alfred Hollings" turns up literally nothing. "A Hollings" turns up a little more, but nothing significant - the closest is this 1927 article, and this 1930 article. I just tried another query, "Hollings" "Plunket Shield" which produced 597 results, but nothing significant - some passing mentions that go beyond statistics, such as this 1926 article, but nothing more, though I haven't reviewed every article. BilledMammal (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that'll be why you got no hits in that time slot. I'm close to getting enough about his play to think again about whether or not to keep you know. It's not clear cut right now - and we don't have access to any obituaries via papers past. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to List of Wellington representative cricketers. The above exchange demonstrates that the nominator has done the requisite WP:BEFORE with no SIGCOV being found. Accordingly, the burden of proof is now on "keep" voters to demonstrate that sufficient SIGCOV exists so as to satisfy WP:GNG. Absent that, then the article should be deleted or redirected. Cbl62 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice rescue work. Striking my delete/redirect vote. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Wellington representative cricketers. As I've said above, I can't find much more than passing references or not very notable things about him yet. They might show up - Papers Past is lovely like that. But there's an obvious ATD here, redirects are cheap and the search term is more than plausible. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tending more towards a weak keep now. There are hundreds of newspaper articles which deal with him beyond scorecards. We know, for example, that he was the most promising colt in the Wellington region, one of the best young all-rounders, that he was stronger batting with his wrists than his feet, that he was a member of the Wellington committee and so on. And there are thousands of articles to check through - far more than we'll be able to manage within the timeframe of an AfD. We can build a better article from those.
That together with the fact that a New Zealander who played a few matches in the 20s got a Wisden obituary - a short one - means that there's something going on here beyond basic database entries - in fact, whatever you want to say about Hollings, this is NOT a subject that is "just a database entry". You don't get a Wisden obituary without being notable and I'm sure there's more going on here. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something out there about this chap. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for searching. Can you link the newspaper articles containing significant coverage, and the Wisden obituary, so we can assess them? BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One I found just now: That - sterling young batsman, A. M. Hollings, came to light with another century for Wellington University team on Saturday, hitting up 108 by most refreshing cricket, in which lie ran the gamut of every stroke in the calendar (states “ Burwood ” in the Dominion) It was a tragedy that this fine all-round player unaccountably lost his form when the trial matches were held to pick the team for England last season. No doubt nervousness had a good deal to do with it. His day will come, however, ana that right speedily. Already this season he has two centuries to his credit, and he should be good for scores in the Plunket Shield and even national games before the season is over. So he was in the running for the New Zealand tour of England in '27. That's more than a little notable. The link is here. Again, ny itself it's not an in-depth article, but when you put it with everything else it feels like there's something here. The Wisden obit is short, as I say, but it's more the fact that he got one at all. A search of "A. M. Hollings" is quite helpful as the snippet view is easier to figure out if it's worth clicking on each article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a long bit here as well - and this is just what we're able to find. I get the feeling there's way more out there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And he got involved with the local rules of the game as well: this suggestion and this response, for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A little more. Article's being worked on just now by someone - there are links that can be added in. I think I'm moving towards a solid keep rather than a weak one now., and that's without having access to the book on Wellington cricket from the 70s. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: Just a database entry. Lacks sigcov. Ficaia (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Blue Square Thing, or worst case, redirect to List of Wellington representative cricketers per WP:ATD, etc. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Personally I think there's just enough for a GNG pass on this one although it is close. We have a couple of NZ cricket editors so they may be able to dig out some more. If it's deemed not enough for a GNG pass, there's a suitable redirect as others have suggested. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wonder if the nominator has contacted User:Sammyrice prior to this AfD, as someone who provides exceedingly good coverage of NZ cricketers, as has been suggested for New Zealand cricketers at previous AfD's? Keep per BST too. StickyWicket (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated article I have just added a lot more information. Hopefully it will help. Missing at the moment is his legal career as most of that information is in the period between 1950 and 1980 which is only obtainable in local libraries. Hollings headed a fairly prominant Wellington law firm if my recollection is correct. His military career looks unspectacular so don't think there is anything there.NealeWellington (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've continued to add - and there's a shed load more to come as I've not even got to him being close to being picked for NZ yet. I'm tending more towards strong keep now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw per WP:HEY; thank you NealeWellington. StickyWicket, I will contact Sammyrice in the future for New Zealand cricketers. BilledMammal (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The name has been sorted as per @Liz's note. Consensus appears clear to keep. Once this wave subsides and it's no longer a current event, this does not preclude an eventual merger but there isn't a consensus for one now. Star Mississippi 01:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022[edit]

COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022 (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 has an unclear scope (the title states "March 2022" yet the body discusses events in February 2022 and April 2022), and there isn't enough content here to require a split from COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai. It seems like this might be about a lockdown, but the sources don't seem clear about making this a separate topic from the overall pandemic in the area, which would make the existence of this page not in line with how the relevant events are covered in sources (effectively WP:SYNTH). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: this is already a B class rated article on Chinese Wikipedia, and it is mainly discussing events in March.QiuLiming1 (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The scope of the article seems to be the ongoing outbreak that began in late February of this year. I'm not sure whether or not it should be merged with the COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai article, but I think the intended scope is coherent. If kept, it should probably be moved to March 2022 COVID-19 outbreak in Shanghai or something like that. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: It would be better to merge the article with COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai, rather than creating a separate article.Toadboy123 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Now I disagree, by November 2021, it only have 1 thousand cases, but just on April 8st(one day), it have over 20 thousand cases. We could change the title, but for example, COVID-19 did not stop in 2020 or 2021, but it is only named COVID-19.QiuLiming1 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai without prejudice against splitting the articles again once content forking criteria, (specifically, "Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem") are met to justify separate articles.

    The relevant guidelines are:

    1. Wikipedia:Content forking says in the lead paragraph (my bolding):

      A content fork is the creation of multiple separate pieces of content (such as Wikipedia articles or inter-wiki objects) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided, as the goal of a single source of truth is preferable in most circumstances. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Examples of this might be the cuisine of a particular region forking from an article about the region in general, a filmography forking from an article about an actor or director or a sub-genre of an aspect of culture such as a musical style.

    2. Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinoffs: "Summary style" meta-articles and summary sections says:

      There are two situations where spinoff subarticles become necessary, and, when done properly, they create the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible:

      1. Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem
      2. Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections

      In both cases, summary sections are used in the main article to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s).

      Sometimes, when an article gets too long (see Wikipedia:Article size), an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle, and the handling of that subject in the main article is condensed into a brief summary section. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new subarticle is sometimes called a "spinoff" from the main article ("spinout" leads elsewhere); Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique.

    3. Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues says:

      A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers. Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%. At 10,000 words (50 kB and above) it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style – see Size guideline (rule of thumb) below.

    4. Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline says:

      Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

      Readable prose size What to do
      > 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
      > 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
      > 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
      < 40 kB Length alone does not justify division
      < 1 kB If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Wikipedia:Stub.

      Please note: These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters.

    There are the two relevant articles:
    1. COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022 (662 words): the Chinese version at zh:2022年3月上海市2019冠状病毒病聚集性疫情 is 236,000 bytes. As Mx. Granger noted, "The scope of the article seems to be the ongoing outbreak that began in late February of this year."
    2. COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai (2,609 words) – the Chinese version at zh:2019冠狀病毒病上海市疫情 is 115,000 bytes. The scope of this article is about the COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai including "the ongoing outbreak that began in late February of this year".
    I am supporting a merge of COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022 to COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai for now because there currently is not enough content in the two English Wikipedia articles to justify two separate articles. But based on the lengthy Chinese Wikipedia articles, it is likely that both English Wikipedia articles can be expanded enough to justify two separate articles under Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline. I therefore support a merge for now without prejudice against splitting the articles again once content forking criteria (specifically, "Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem") are met to justify separate articles.

    Cunard (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • the thing is I am not familiar with medical stuff and not so many people is willing to translate. QiuLiming1 (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your continued good work on the article, QiuLiming1 (talk · contribs)! When I posted my first comment to the AfD, COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022 was 662 words. It has now grown to over 1,500 words. Although I don't consider merging COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai March 2022 to COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai to be undue weight yet, if the article continues on its trajectory of being substantially expanded as has happened over the past few days, a merge would be undue weight and there will be a convincing case for having separate articles. I am striking my "merge" recommendation and will abstain from offering an opinion about retention or merge for now. If the AfD is closed as "keep", I support a rename to remove "March" from the title since the article's scope extends beyond March 2022. Cunard (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
note: this article have several hundred pageviews/day recently and it is being included in some new sources, including this one (Time Magazine) QiuLiming1 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it. It serves no purpose. —ÐW-🇺🇦(T·C) 14:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or rename. This is great work, definitely strongly opposed to deletion. I think this should probably be merged into COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai, or otherwise renamed 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak or COVID-19 lockdown in Shanghai.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a current news, so I think maybe merge later(at least 1 month after?) because information is coming out daily? I am also translating info daily so keep for now is more convient?QiuLiming1 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @QiuLiming1: you are doing great work! Do you think it would be more difficult to integrate the news coming out into the existing COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai article? I understand that may need some restructuring of that article, but it's generally a good idea not to have content forking. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is mainly about the special lockdown policy while other one is about general pandemic QiuLiming1 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, in that case I would support Keep and it should be renamed COVID-19 lockdown in Shanghai.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a top news in China Today. It deserves a separate article, past outbreaks are significantly different from what this article describes, but maybe the article would be better with a different name. Yinyue200 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a clearly notable subject here. Of course, it will be a little bit of time before we can say much for certain. The notion that people are being blocked from leaving their apartment for 13 days until their small area goes that long with no Covid cases, in a country that claims 80% vacination levels, is something that is going to get all sorts of coverage for a long time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

after the discussion is closed I could rename if there is a consensus of keeping. QiuLiming1 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough to stand on its own and different enough from the previous stuff. Recommend renaming the older article to include the year like the zhwp one. Merging would be tough given how small the target is; the change in case definition will also mess some things up. --Artoria2e5 🌉
  • Keep This article is notable as evidenced by this article and this article. Shortbrief (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The problem is clearly article name not scope. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all the comments. Other people have commented things other than "Keep", but I'm going to withdraw my nomination personally as the article has been significantly improved since I nominated it. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak; it's still ongoing, so remove the March. lol1VNIO[not Lol1VNIO] (talk • contribs) 23:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion was closed prematurely by the article creator so I have reverted the closure. The article has also been moved to 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak so is at this page title now. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ellis Island. North America1000 07:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Pettersen[edit]

Arne Pettersen (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:BIO1E and WP:GNG. Suggesting merging into the Ellis Island page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Per nom, to Ellis Island. Potentially notable subject, but as written the sourcing is inadequate to meet notability for WP: GNG. Unreliable and not independent. A few sections are missing citation, and others have acknowledged the information comes from the firsthand account of Pettersen himself. NiklausGerard (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per nom. Only known for one event. Toddst1 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ellis Island: Suitable for merging into the Ellis Island page. Gusfriend (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find enough evidence to pass WP:GNG. Delete or merge. Spmilan (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being the last person processed through a point that processed tens of thousands is not at all a claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Clearly, it is.
  • Comment, as nom I saw an IP point to Annie Moore (immigrant) as an example of why this article should be kept. However, Annie Moore's deletion discussion (see here) had many Keep votes with good reasoning as to why we should have her article on here. She has a statue and countless dedication ceremonies supporting the fact that she moved to New York. Pettersen, however, just overstayed on his visa and got deported. He doesn't have that big of a legacy, and he lived, worked, and died in Norway. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fakescientist8000: perhaps because for several decades, he was misidentified as moving to New York with a friend’s help? (Honestly, a section about what was THOUGHT to have happened to him should be added).
@108.45.170.249: I would have to disagree with you. That would be a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I recognize that this was created by a long tenured editor, but there is currently no consensus for it to exist in mainspace. It had been draftified once, and that didn't stick. However if someone would like this to work on in draft space, I'm happy to provide. Star Mississippi 01:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remote (company)[edit]

Remote (company) (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)

There's no claim of notability. Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The cited sources look like churnalism, with some of them discussed at WP:RSN. A WP:BEFORE search showed the same sort of junk. The author, Husond, hasn't divulged a conflict of interest but this seems an odd choice of article to write after having stopped editing for years. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the fact that the account sptrang back to life for this article, it does not mean he has a COI. He could just be a huge fan of the service, etc... When a website is big enough then you will have fans that will do stuff for you.
I would lean towards weak keep if better sourcing can be found, otherwise delete. Rlink2 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see how this company fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It's a $3B valued portfolio company of some of the world's largest private equity and venture capital firms, well covered by reliable sources including Bloomberg. I'm genuinely baffled that this is being nominated for deletion. And yes, I've been inactive for a while - and it was precisely because I noticed that there was no article on this company that I've decided to log back into WP. Húsönd 17:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Looking at the sources available and hunting around some, I'm concerned that the coverage of this company is almost entirely surrounding the funding rounds it's gone through and not much about it, in and of itself. Like, every reference used in this piece is a story about the $300m funding round, which does lean towards the nom's argument that it's press-release based. Husond, can you pin down sources that are independent of the funding and focused on the company itself? I'd be more inclined to keep if so. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it was mainly the third funding round that created a lot of press about it. I've worked in the venture capital world and when certain companies raise a lot of money that's when they become relevant and carry on to become public etc. Remote's last funding round was quite substantial so a lot of publications reported it and proceeded to explain what the company does. I've just created an overview of the company with some of it. I should mention that I based the article on one of their competitor's (Deel (company)) - which is a similar type of company with similar sources. So I'm a bit surprised this one raised concerns. Húsönd 18:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Looking at the Deel page, I'm seeing some sources that dig in deeper than "this company raised X" which is what I'd prefer to see. Matter of fact, this discusses Remote along with Deel, and is the kind of coverage I'd prefer to see here - it's about the company itself, not how much funding it's raised. (eta) This Forbes article from the Deel page gets into Remote as well. Looks like there is material out there that could work. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've found quite a few additional sources that talk about this company without linking it to the round of funding. This one refers to a refugee program the company has launched and which is being used to assist with Ukrainian refugee employment in Portugal. This one from the Business Insider talking about the company's business model. This one from Carnegie Mellon also describing what the company does and mentioning that it's one of only half a dozen "unicorn" companies with Portuguese founders. Plus these mentions on the FT and BBC. Reuters also writes about it but it's linked to the latest round of funding event. Valid sources just pile up, I find it hard to believe this company fails notability criteria. Húsönd 22:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm definitely leaning towards a keep here if these are all written into the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Worklife, BBC, and FT citations all quote one of Remote's co-founders, so I have doubts about independence. Again, this is a hallmark of churnalism. The same is true for the Carnegie piece, which says Remote is an affiliated company, hence not independent. The Reuters piece looks like WP:MILL to me. I'd like to hear from Husond a clear statement if he does or does not have a conflict of interest. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned that you are discounting articles because they quote people involved with the company. That's how journalism works - we interview people, we build articles based around the quotes that they give us. Those all read as articles developed via individual interviews requested by the reporter on specific topics, which to me are entirely suitable. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most "hits" are about remote work in general, nothing beyond press releases for the company. It's only been around since 2019, so there probably isn't much written ABOUT the company yet. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When companies pick a common word as their name it makes it considerably more difficult to find sources specific to them. But they clearly exist - see above. Húsönd 22:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep, per the additional sources discussed above by Tony Fox and Husond. That said, I would be inclined to keep already just on the basis of the TechCrunch and Bloomberg News sources already in the article. This company has undoubtedly received particular attention due to the size of its last funding round, but several of the sources (esp. the TechCrunch) delve at least in passing into what the company does, not just the $ raised, and while undoubtedly their authors have relied heavily on press releases, it seems reasonable to assume they exercised usual journalistic independence in doing so. It's worth noting that due to not-infrequent COI/paid-editor issues, new articles about companies often receive extra scrutiny these days. However, that does not mean we should apply stricter criteria on notability and sourcing than we apply for other articles. (I'd actually be tempted to say Speedy Keep, though I note there is an additional delete !vote, though that predates the additional sources found.) Martinp (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting after a couple of days to reflect on discussion since my comment, and in this case reaffirm my keep !vote. In the Chris Troutman/Tony Fox/Husond thread, I respect that "churnalism" (I like the term) is a challenge, but think in this instance Chris has his churnalism meter setting turned up too high. I find Oaktree's Delete unpersuasive: it's not about "most hits", it's whether there are enough needle-in-haystack genuine reliable sources, and it seems there are; and they go well beyond just press releases (though I recognize that exactly how strong a layer of genuine journalistic independent review on top of releases and interviews is open for debate.) Finally, regarding Chris' request, buried in the thread above, for a "clear statement" regarding whether Husond (as article creator) has a COI, I personally think such requests should routinely be answered. However I also recognize that Chris' nomination for deletion here follows very closely rather snarky comments he made on Husond's talk page regarding return to adminship, and so I also respect if Husond feels entitled to just silently ignore what may feel like hounding. Ultimately, I am happy to evaluate the article here on its merits without reference to it. Martinp (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Martinp, I've been quite busy this week so little time to get back to this discussion - but I also intend to update the article with some of the additional sources I found above, so to fully address the concerns on the merits of the initial sources. On the COI clarification demands by the nominator - which I did notice but did not respond - to be honest they do feel to me just as you put it: hounding. Personally I couldn't care less if the creator of a new article has a COI, provided that the article is written in NPOV, the notability of the subject is established, and the content is duly referenced by reliable, independent sources. The nominator and others may think differently of course, and that's absolutely fine, but when it comes to COI disclosure - I believe it should rest strictly within the editor's discretion rather than being forced on them. I didn't agree with such demands for disclosure when I was more active on WP years ago, and after this episode I don't think I'll change my stance on the matter. Húsönd 22:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Husond: Regarding your assertion, " when it comes to COI disclosure - I believe it should rest strictly within the editor's discretion rather than being forced on them" you'll please note that the Terms of Use legally require disclosure: "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. As you say, you've been gone from Wikipedia for some time; these are the sorts of issues a returning editor ought to catch up on. That doesn't square with the fact that the policy changed in June 2014 when you (and I) were actively editing and you would think an admin would know better. Would you now like to revise your prior statements? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, my personal opinion about an editor with COI is a personal one, and it doesn't conflict with our t&c's in any manner. But what I think you don't fully appreciate is that a requirement for an editor to self disclose their COI is not a free pass for other users to demand disclosures. There's so many problems with that, but sadly it's been going on for 15 years and it's obviously a behaviour that is here to stay. Húsönd 21:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, keep on the condition that the new sources be incorporated into the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorporated now. Húsönd 21:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I still think some of the refs are iffy and more could be done to improve the article overall, but there's enough here to work with moving forward. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I would expect the article to improve going forward. But if kept, at least a small article will exist - and then when someone tries to find where this company is headquartered (which was my case when I first searched for it) then at least they will find out that kind of basic information. Húsönd 10:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Boy, is this discussion a reeducation for me. Note to self: stick with discussions on the arts, business is way too angry. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Examination of the references:

The references are really really poor and I can't understand why everybody is piling with a keep. Ref 1,4,5,6,7,8 are press-releases. Ref 2,3 are bare mentions and are not independent and Ref 9 is junk. scope_creepTalk 23:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of coming across as bludgeoning (I've commented several times above, and this will be my last comment here), I think the logic here jumps several steps. Indeed, many of these sources would doubtless not exist were coverage not provoked by the recent capital raise, and undoubtedly those sources were informed by, paraphrased, and in fact copied bits of the press release. But they do add various bits of additional information, and we can but assume they did whatever amount of fact checking and editorializing secondary sources do. So it feels excessive to say they "are" press-releases. For instance, Ref 1 goes beyond just noting the capital transaction, it attempts (admittedly superficially) to delve into why, using text not in the PR. While analogies are always hazardous, I keep on thinking that if the article were about an artist, athlete, etc., we would be delighted with the sourcing and would not be having this discussion. Martinp (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think responding like you have is "bludgeoning" - you have demonstrated that you have listened to an opposing point of view and provided your response which isn't a repeat of what you've previously said. But, that said, NCORP guidelines are strict when it comes to references used to establish notability and articles that regurgitate press releases or company announcements specifically fail WP:NCORP (No "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND which meets WP:CORPDEPTH).
  • Note to Admin There was a clear of WP:BLUDGEONing by editor User:Martinp. I removed the comment. scope_creepTalk 06:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't consider Martinp's comment a case of bludgeoning at all, so it clearly isn't "clear". In fact, I found it a perfectly valid response to your concerns. I would recommend restoring it for the sake of civility. Húsönd 08:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think reverting a (I believe) reasonable response to one's own contribution in a AFD *discussion* should be done only in the most extreme circumstances, so I find scope_creep's reaction bizarre. I trust the closing admin will look at the whole discussion, including my response to scope_creep, which was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Remote_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1082594384 That said, I think I've said all I can say in this discussion without repeating my own words, so as I said in the reverted response, I'm bowing out. Martinp (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Scope creep, while I lean toward agreeing with you that the article fails NCORP, removing User:Martinp's comment is not WP:CIVIL behavior. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to take issue with your opinion of the TechCrunch article, ref 1. Yeah, they're listed as a caution in WP:RSP but with a few notes, and to respond to those: the article is not a blog, it's bylined and written by a TechCrunch staff member; it's specifically noted in the article that they interviewed the CEO, so there is original writing and analysis in the piece rather than it being entirely PR-based. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standard-issue churnalist garbage sourced to press releases. And even without the evasiveness above re COI, I'd have figured this was bought and paid for. DoubleCross (‡) 05:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely why demands to disclose COI should not be allowed. They plant seeds in people's minds and influence the outcome of discussions just as much as COI itself influences the outcome of an article. And then they create a fertile ground for this type of nonsense by users with crystal balls and apparently access to my bank account. Húsönd 10:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Comment This dude here who is a UPE and the other dude who replied earlier, are trying to WP:BLUDGEON the whole Afd. I'm half-minded to take them to both to AN. scope_creepTalk 13:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly not half-stopping you. Húsönd 13:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:SIGCOV. A close analysis of the sources demonstrate churnalism at its baldest. I also note that UPE is against the TOU, so why is that guy still here. I suggests the closing admin ignore the hocus-pocus going on above and focus on the arguments for deleting this article, which are that sources have been found mentioning the company and that it does not matter the quality of that coverage. SN54129 19:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "why is that guy still here" - dunno, perhaps because in your close analysis you decided that the allegations by the nominator which later became formal accusations should now be upgraded to a verdict & punishment. Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Húsönd 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy who's taken over a decade to make ~259 edits is telling people how it works? Good luck with that. SN54129 23:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails SIGCOV. Even though this is a corporation, WP:ROUTINE has application here. The sources already applied and (IMHO) correctly analyzed by User:Scope creep demonstrate this company exists, having funding and personnel. Nothing notable about that. No assertion of notability at all, that I can see, either on the page or in sources. If User:Husond is an UPE, they at least have made no effort to conceal it. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have to make any effort whatsoever to conceal whatsoever. This is beyond farcical. Húsönd 21:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per scope creep and sn54129. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 03:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not able to figure out why this company is noteable today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.115.5.118 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Rather than deleting if it fails notability I think that draftifying it would be the way to go to allow it to mature as an article. Gusfriend (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gusfriend: yo, it can't be draftified, that's been done once already. Best to delete. SN54129 13:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have put Martinp's comment back in, at his request. scope_creepTalk 07:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of reliable, secondary sources providing details for this company. Arguing that WP:GNG and WP:NCORP are not met here is ridiculous. It could perhaps be argued that one source like Reuters, Bloomberg or the Financial Times could gullibly follow a press release without fact-checking, but to assume all of these have reported incredible information is rejecting WP:RS/PS consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This entire discussion, and the related discussions on other noticeboards, seems to derive from a logical fallacy. The argument seems to be “the writer has a conflict of interest and/or is being paid, therefore the article is terrible and must be deleted.” There are two issues here. First, the CoI/UPE is an allegation without supporting evidence, but one that most other commenters have taken as true and based their arguments for deletion around. The problem is that the CoI/UPE allegation is just that — and allegation. No rational decisions can be made using that as a basis. Secondly, even if this was CoI/UPE, that in itself is not a reason for deletion. Perhaps it should be, and people could propose that elsewhere. But currently it isn’t, so the !votes above that start from the basis that this should be deleted for CoI/UPE and then add some very professional-looking reasoning based on sources being not good enough because the article is a CoI/UPE are specious. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name one editor here who's primary argument is that the argument needs to be deleted because of CoI/UPE? Because from what I see, most delete !votes don't even mention CoI/UPE and those that do only mention it as an afterthought at the end. Discussions on other noticeboards are unlikely to be considered by any closed of this AfD. Nil Einne (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, it shouldn't be in the opening statement and it shouldn't be an afterthought - it is totally unrelated to the criteria on notability and significant coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Even accepting that, it seems to me making false accusations against other editors as Trey Maturin seems to have done is more severe. More significantly no one is required to participate at an AfD though and assessing an AfD properly generally takes time. I don't see why editors aren't allowed to make decisions on whether they're going to spend time on such things based at least partly on how severe the problem is. If it's just one of those run of the mill possibly non notable company articles that we have probably tens of thousands of maybe just leave it, since you can't be bothered. If it's one of the much more severe cases where the article may have been created by someone with a CoI then you're more willing to spend time to do the assessment.

    I'd note someone having a CoI also changes the dynamic of source and notability assessment. If an article is at AfD and the creator is still defending it, then under normal circumstances we have one editor saying it meets our criteria and the sources are there, one editor who does not. If the editor has a CoI then this no longer applies. We do not trust editors with a CoI to be objective and fair in the assessment, one of the reasons we strongly discourage even if we don't forbid editors with a CoI from editing articles directly let alone creating them. Therefore in a CoI situation, at the outset we only have on editor who feels it doesn't meet our sourcing and notability requirements. Editors assessing the comments from the creator (or whoever it is with a CoI) are likewise likely to give added scrutiny to what they say and more carefully check what they're pointing to and of course the closer will generally consider it too.

    Note that I'm commenting on a case where an editor has a proven probably self admitted CoI. This is not the case here but your comment makes no such distinction instead suggesting it's never acceptable to comment on a CoI in an AfD.

    The question of whether you should comment on a CoI when it's unproven and some may feel the evidence isn't even that strong is more complicated and not something I wish to comment on except to briefly emphasise how complicated it. One thing I haven't yet mentioned is it's possible that an editor may let the fact they know or think the other editor has a CoI unfairly affect their assessment i.e. they'd be more negative to a source everything else being equal. While such concerns don't seem to be enough in the case of a proven CoI to prevent it being mentioned, they add to the concerns where it's unproven since other editors may not have such thoughts were it never mentioned & yet it's unproven. On the flip side, the OP was obviously thinking that, and it sounds to me at least one editor probably would have thought the same thing with no one having mentioned anything, so such concerns already arise. By preventing these editors from mentioning it, you're preventing other editors and the closer for that matter, from considering that this editor's views may have been affected by their belief there's probably a CoI.

    Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally feel that if an editor is incorporating the possibility of a COI into their thinking, they are far more likely to view the same information in a negative light. It's the classic positive (or in this case negative) confirmation bias. People looking for a way to discount an article they think might be paid are more likely to filter out information that defies such a conclusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article already has a volume of RS that some embryonic startup articles can only dream of ... which is not really surprising given the $3bn valuation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless the fact that an editor has a proven CoI seems a far greater reason to discount their assessment. I'd note again, other than my last paragraph we're not discussing "the possibility of a COI" we're discussing a proven COI. Your earlier comment makes no such distinction instead claiming it's not acceptable to ever comment on a CoI in an AfD since it's irrelevant to the source and notability assessment implying this is the case even where the editor has a self-admitted CoI. And again even in unproven case, if you fear this then you also have to consider it's already happening. By disallowing editors from saying it, you and the closure cannot incorporated such thinking into their assessment. As I also mentioned, this benefit does need to be counterbalanced with the risk that editors will start thinking it who weren't doing so earlier and I make no comment on which is the great benefit. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B. I was earlier briefly correct/improve my original comment changing from "even that strong is more complicated and not something I wish to comment on except to" to "even that strong as is the case here is not something I wish to comment on, there have already been ample discussions on this all over, except to" and "i.e." to "e.g." and finally (well one more too unimportant) adding "being equal or say it doesn't mean NCORP when they would have said something different if there were no CoI" but was hit by an EC. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think even a confirmed COI case should result in the same sources being reflected on differently. While it should draw additional scrutiny to the article as a whole, the actual process of decision-making regarding sourcing should be unaffected. BUT, in cases such as this, where a COI is not confirmed, but just an aspersion, it is quite problematic. As @Rlink2 notes, there are several plausible reasons why a longstanding editor might come back to put up an article on a company, not least of them, simply from reading the news. And the problem with positive confirmation bias is that it is a subconscious phenomenon, which means, regardless of their intentions, people prepped to discount contrary information often unwittingly tend to do so. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My view on COI is very much in line with Iskandar/Trey Maturin's. Nobody in this discussion based their delete position solely on the COI/UPE allegations, but most mentioned them so it's difficult to tell how much influence they played when the editors assessed the article on its own merits. Or how many editors were drawn to this discussion by the allegations and happened to fall on the deletionist part of the spectrum. So it's clear that this discussion would've had a very different trajectory if the nominator hadn't planted the seed of doubt right at the beginning, and doubled down with a direct request to disclose COI when the discussion was leaning towards Keep. The outcome would probably have been different, and the toxicity levels would certainly have been very different.
    I should add that the only editor on the delete side who made a thorough assessment of the sources (Scope creep) was the same editor who gratuitously accused me of being paid to create the article. I can't help but take issue with the editor's capacity for making balanced judgments - extended to the editors who were too happy to side with him. Húsönd 08:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on what I see in the article, this fails NCORP. There are some good RS there (e.g. BBC, FT), but they only mention the subject in passing, in order to explain who the founder is when they are using a quote they got from him; the articles are essentially about different subjects. The sources which are about the company seem to be just routine coverage of capital being raised (of the type described as trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I'll add that even if the sourcing were up to scratch, I'd be tempted to !vote delete per WP:TNT: the article is partly written in impenetrable marketing jargon (a global provider of payroll solutions - what does that mean?), and it's generally very promotional in tone. Girth Summit (blether) 14:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been much distraction in this AfD, but the gist IMO is that this fails NCORP, the best sources that exist are those about round III funding, and I agree with User:Girth Summit that this amounts to trivial coverage. Delete Jacona (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per above. RS's only mention company in passing, and non notable. They exist, and that's basically it. Fails NCORP and GNG. Anyone who is accusing Husond of violating WP:UPE and WP:COI without substantial evidence besides "they edited x article" are just blatantly attacking Husond. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that anyone has proposed a merge yet - if you think this is a viable option, you should probably indicate a target page to merge it into. Girth Summit (blether) 18:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability (mostly WP:SERIESA-type references), topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Johnagin[edit]

Tommy Johnagin (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)

De-prodded right before the expiration with a prompt to look for sources. I was unable to find any. The current sources are his own website and two local-interest stories from or near to his hometown. Comedians can appear on a lot of shows once without ever building up notability, and this seems to be the case here. What few sources I did find were just passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Pantoja and the Special Services (disambiguation)[edit]

Captain Pantoja and the Special Services (disambiguation) (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)

We only have articles on two topics by this title, one of which is the primary topic, so per WP:TWODABS there's no need for a disambiguation page and hatnotes can be used instead. The dab page does also have the redlink Captain Pantoja and the Special Services (1975 film) but, while it's useful to list redlinks in dab pages, and the Spanish Wikipedia's article on the 1975 film indicates it's probably notable, I don't think we should keep disambiguation pages solely for the sake of redlinks which provide little to no value to the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These are all adaptations of the same work. Hatnotes and wikilinks are sufficient. pburka (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BOVINEBOY2008 08:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 07:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

America Iglesias Thatcher[edit]

AfDs for this article:
America Iglesias Thatcher (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)

Even the obituary of Thatcher spends about as much time speaking about her parents (although oddly only attributed to her father, what of her mother?) practicies in naming their daughters. It provides little information on her, and the information procvided does not really seem to indicate she was notable. There is also no writer listed on the obitaury, which normally happens with staff written obituaries, so this may be a family sipplied one, which would not be a reliable indepdent source adding towards passing GNG at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I still don't think the new sources added amount to notability, nothing beyond passing mentions it seems of her. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gasham Najafzadeh[edit]

Gasham Najafzadeh (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)

Does not pass WP:GNG. Azerbaijani PR activities as usual. Kadı Message 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nijisanji[edit]

Nijisanji (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:NCORP. Has all the appearance of a WP:COATRACK where I anticipate a push to fill out all the listed names with adverts for their channels. WP:ADMASQ with a substantial helping of WP:BOMBARD 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it's an ad, it looks more like it was written by fans. That being said, many of the sources are to PR Times, which as you can probably guess from the name, is a website which publishes press releases. I haven't looked at the other sources, though, and there are quite a few of them, so it's possible that there are some good ones in there. Mlb96 (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify - An article should speak for itself and explain how the subject is notable, which is based on what third parties say about the company. This article is written from the viewpoint of the company, not from that of third parties, and does not establish corporate notability.
    • In order to be ready for article space, two improvements are needed:
      • The article should state what reliable sources say about the agency.
      • The originator should identify not less than three nor more than five key references that can be checked. Neither the reviewing editors nor the readers should be expected to review the 26 references with which this article has been bombed.
    • This article was declined in draft space but moved into article space anyway. It was not ready for article space, and can be moved back into draft space or deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 01:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Can't we just do a cleanup? Hololive has a page; it's only fair Nijisanji gets one. —ÐW-🇺🇦(T·C) 18:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, there must be significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. The Hololive page has many such sources, and so is easily notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. While I have not looked at every source on the Nijisanji page, many of them are either routine announcements (and therefore do not contain significant coverage), or are press releases from the company (and therefore are not independent). Could you point to two or three independent reliable sources which you believe contain significant coverage of Nijisanji? Mlb96 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point still stands. —ÐW-🇺🇦(T·C) 23:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, actually, but I decided to look through the sources myself and there's enough there to justify keeping the page, as I explain below. Mlb96 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still refuse to change my opinion. —ÐW-🇺🇦(T·C) 18:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I really didn't want to, but I looked through the sources in the article, and I think there are just barely enough. There is one very good source from Kai-You which is a review of one of Nijisanji's live concerts. While I've never heard of Kai-You, they seem to have solid journalistic practices that should qualify them as a reliable source. There is also a piece from Dengeki Online, which is a well-established media outlet, but I was having some trouble discerning if this piece was independent, as it contains some seemingly promotional language. However, I believe that this is simply a quirk of translation, as many phrases which would seem promotional in English are fixed expressions in Japanese (e.g., "please watch the video"). There is also an article from Crunchyroll about a controversy with which the group was involved. However, this piece focuses more on the other aspects of the controversy than on Nijisanji, so it's not quite as good as the aforementioned articles. Finally, there are two articles from MoguraVR which contain significant coverage, but I'm not convinced that this is a reliable source, so I largely discounted them. Overall, I would say this is enough to consider Nijisanji to be notable, but not by a very large margin. Mlb96 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will try to help with cleanup. However, most of the good sources are for the English branch primarily. Also, as previously mentioned not only Hololive but VShojo has a page which is a lot weaker than this one and has stayed untouched for some time now. Jotamide (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jotamide No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Mlb's analysis, and the sources used to support the Japanese language articles controversies section, which from a skim seem intellectually independent and meet NCORP guidelines. Jumpytoo Talk 07:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In addition to the articles already mentioned above, the one from A Little Bit Human is also a quality published source. Among other things, the source states that Nijsanji is not just one of the first VTuber agencies, but THE first VTuber agency (if I were an editor of this article, that would be one of the first things added to the lead, and frankly I am shocked that this has not been done yet). The source also notes that Nijisanji is the only major competitor to Hololive. This is echoed in a different source not currently included in the Wikipedia article from Slate here, which briefly describes Nijisanji as one of the two largest VTuber agencies along with Hololive. I highly recommend keeping the article, but efforts should be made to include more English-language sources and to not overlook highly notable facts like the one I mentioned. Jackdude101 talk cont 02:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify if some of the material will be used for a topic on the "movement" in general (and not the organization as it currently is) - otherwise Delete as the references fail NCORP and the organization does not meet our notability guideline. Its taken a while but I've now looked at every reference. There is *nothing* that provides in-depth information on the organization. In contrast, there's absolute tons of stuff on individual Nijisanji characters and their antics - but they're not the topic of this article. It is also notable that the reasoning provided by Mlb96 above highlights the "reliable sources" of each publication rather than commenting on whether the content contains "Independent Content" which is in-depth and about the *company*. Rather than provide an analysis of all 46 references, I'll comment instead on those references mentioned above in this AfD
    • This from kai-you.net] does indeed discuss the Nijisanji festivals, providing the dates for each festival but provides nothing by way of information on the company. Fails CORPDEPTH.
    • This from Dengeki Online] is primarily an article which introduces the reader to the world of VTubers and provides a profile for a number of Nijisanji characters. But it does not discuss the organization in any detail. There is also a copyright notice for Ichikara Inc (the owners) at the bottom of the article and it isn't clear whether it is referring to the article itself or something else. Regardless, reference fails CORPDEPTH
    • This crunchyroll article discusses a Nijisanji playing a version of "Among Us". It provides no in-depth details about the organization, fails CORPDEPTH
    • Both references from MoguLive fail to provide also - a common theme to the many references, both also fail CORPDEPTH
I'm happy to revisit my !vote if somebody wishes to point to a specific reference which contains in-depth information on the company but I'm unable to locate one, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. That said, there may be some scope for the article to change the topic away from the organization and focus instead on the "movement" or the characters, I believe there is sufficient material for such an article. HighKing++ 21:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how an article based on the Nijisanji "movement" or characters would be much different from the article as is, certainly not different to the point where WP:TNT or drafication is necessary. Maybe remove some references to the organization behind it "AnyColor" but otherwise the article seems scoped good enough to the characters & the movement (a poor quality article yes, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). Jumpytoo Talk 02:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the way I'm approaching this, if the article is about the organization (which this one is) and none of the references meet NCORP then the topic should be deleted - hence the Delete !vote. But reading through the refs, I get the impression that there might be enough to do an article about the characters and groups which wouldn't be the same article but would probably use some of the same content. So it isn't cleanup either, its a new topic. Perhaps a Delete isn't the correct !vote - but neither is Keep which would simply preserve this topic. Because there's a chance that this article would be re-used for a new topic (hence keeping the history) I'll change to Draftify/Delete on the basis the topic might be changed - but if the topic remains on the organization, then I'm firmly delete as the refs fails NCORP. HighKing++ 18:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elchin Alibeyli[edit]

Elchin Alibeyli (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)

Does not pass WP:GNG. Araz Yaquboglu's PR activities as usual... Kadı Message 21:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BI/TAS[edit]

BI/TAS (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)

Does not appear to meet notability requirements for software. A search for "BI/TAS" does not seem to return any relevant hits. All eight Google results for "Bill Inquiry/Toll Adjustment System" originate from Wikipedia. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good catch. The screen shot might imply is from the year 2003, although the article seems to have appeared in 2007 or so. As above, no indication it ever got close to being notable enough to merit its own article. Cannot think of a place to merge, and there is no source at all, so is likely just someone's recollection who worked on it back then. W Nowicki (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ninedee[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ninedee (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 appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator PepperBeast (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle Dominican Friary[edit]

Carlisle Dominican Friary (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)

Why does this exist? There are no sources whatsoever and no reason to assume notability. Réunion (talk to me) 19:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, well, medieval friaries are a rather specialised subject. This one was founded in 1233 and dissolved in 1539. Some information here: Blackfriars Priory and some sources mentioned therein (Medieval religious houses in England and Wales / The Victoria history of the county of Cumberland: volume two / Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society) but this would probably be better incorporated into a more general article. It is mentioned with a source (The friaries – Carlisle, Penrith and Appleby – British History Online) in the Carlisle Cathedral article. How about redirecting it there? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually List of monastic houses in England might be better. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of monastic houses in England - which doesn't have this in its table. I can find books in G-books that have this in their index but I don't have access to the text so I can't use them to improve the article. If someone comes along with access to a good research library it may be possible to recreate this as a viable article. Lamona (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Keep - Starting with the source that Malcolmxl5 identified I added some text and references but this isn't my area so it's not very full. However, using "Carlisle Blackfriars" or "Blackfriars of Carlisle" in G-Books there are hits. There needs to be some reconciliation, though, between the listings as "Carlisle Blackfriars" and this article. I'm thinking that the name in the lists doesn't specify the "monastic house" as other items in the list do. But I must leave that for someone better versed in the topic. Lamona (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s listed there under 'Carlisle Blackfriars'. List of monastic houses in Cumbria is another possible redirect target (again as 'Carlisle Blackfriars'). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- We have articles on most pre-reformation religious houses in Britain, so that there is a case for retaining this placeholder. The VCH article is here, covering four houses of friars in the county. Perhaps a single article on the Friaries of Cumberland would be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no longer unsourced NemesisAT (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems to have enough sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is no longer unsourced. LearnIndology (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has been improved since nomination so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antardhaan[edit]

Antardhaan (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:NFILM (with WP:NFO). Couldn't find any reviews in a WP:BEFORE. Perhaps Bengali-language reviews from known critics could be found by locals? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as found three full reviews of the film that constitute significant independent critical coverage here, here, and here so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atlantic306 Great, thanks! I hope the Bengali websites are reliable? I'm just not aware. If so, let me know, I'll withdraw — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is, the other 2 seem to be news sites but Im not definiteAtlantic306 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'll wait for others who are aware of the other website to comment. I've asked about Cinestaan in WP:ICTF a few hours ago, see WT:ICTF#Cinestaan — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being the creator I have updated the page, actually this film was released, not upcoming. I have inserted number of reliable references with few reviews (Eng & Bengali) also. Hope the article may not be deleted. Pinakpani (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do Women Have a Higher Sex Drive?[edit]

Do Women Have a Higher Sex Drive? (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:NFILM i went to remove just the unreliable sources, which were imdb, and places to buy the film and was left with, well, nothing and I can't find anything better. This is part of a large walled garden surrounding the ever-targeted SPA palooza Jan-Willem Breure CUPIDICAE💕 16:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could not find great sources by WP:NEXIST either that would satisfy WP:NFILM or even the WP:GNG. If someone can, they are welcome to tag me. Tip for the nominator: somewhere in the middle of the intro, you say I can't find anything better. So you did a WP:BEFORE by WP:NEXIST. Great!!! That's the important thing to know. gidonb (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can only find PRweb links. It would be possible to list this in the director's page but there is none. The director's name redirects to his other film about men = pedophiles. I suppose this could be mentioned on that page, but that would be stretching it. Lamona (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything to establish notability here either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Card counter (disambiguation)[edit]

Card counter (disambiguation) (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 entry is an exact match; the film is preceded with "The" and is fully capitalized. This is better handled with a hatnote at card counting, which is the PT for card counter. MB 16:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death Bed Confession[edit]

Death Bed Confession (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)

Does not appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Dazzle[edit]

DJ Dazzle (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 appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. PepperBeast (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have cleaned up the article a bit. Dazzle is often mentioned in the Dutch press, whether in passing mentions (one even called him a famous DJ), or in a sentence or two. I did not find any WP:INDEPTH, hence reached the same conclusion as nominator. Fails the WP:GNG and, with a positive outlook, can be held at WP:TOOSOON. If someone found better sources, they are welcome to tag me! gidonb (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As previously stated, lacks significant in-depth coverage. Even with cleanup, inadequate sourcing to meet notability, per WP: GNG. NiklausGerard (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely! For the record, my cleanup focused on removing puffery. gidonb (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kinga Stanisławska[edit]

Kinga Stanisławska (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 notable, querries on the internet have not provided sufficient information. Nadzik (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logz.io[edit]

Logz.io (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)

Looking at the sources and elsewhere online, cannot see how this company meets WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at the sources and elsewhere online, I come to the exact opposite conclusion. Notable and well-sourced. No reason at all for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I made my way here from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Scott_(businessman). Cause if he created a page about himself, I was curious to see what other edits he made. Sure enough, he works here. Sure enough, just about every edit he's made is undeclared COI. As for this page, there's too many red flags. That he created the page over-rides any merit that the company may be Wiki-notable. The page should be scrapped and if someone wants to start over, they should go for it. As for the editor, the book needs to be thrown at him. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you, MaskedSinger. For the sake of good order, I am repeating my comment at the Samuel Scott AfD. if you look at "View history" for Logz.io, Nreatian and KelWright are possible socks for Sjscott80. Looking at Special:Contributions/Nreatian, two of the other articles edited, Ness Digital Engineering and SilverPush look to be of questionnable notability. Edwardx (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was the original author of the page in question. To clarify: Yes, I worked at this company until 2017. No, I do not have any "socks." Any edits made since 2017 would likely have been made by others (whether still at the company or not, I do not know).
I have also made other clarifications at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Scott_(businessman). 109.64.180.197 (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the company is wiki-worthy, you've stained it by association. This content is tainted and should be deleted. If someone legit wants to come along and recreate it, they can do so with a clean start. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per self admitted COI. Did not expect the author to admit the COI. Gabe114 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Gila. Specifically, these are two very strong sources: [2][3].gidonb (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing's excellent findings below clearly undermined the validity of my second most promising source. In order to vote delete, I would need to re-evaluate all. I may get to that. But meantime my keep does not stand. gidonb (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentEdwardx.Given what is now confirmed about this page's origins, tags should be placed on the page (Close connection, COI, paid editor, etc) MaskedSinger (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not automtically. Only if specific problems remain. gidonb (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: while we seem to have a consensus on COI, we don't have one on notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

two very strong sources ? you must be kidding: 1) this an a contributor writer, without any editorial vetting, and 2) this is just a routing coverage of a miniscule money funding based on a PR material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:5FA5:100:5560:274E:4238:4792 (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anon, not kidding! Staff journalists and freelance expert writers are both subject to editorial oversight. The other article was written by staff journalist, so you are contradicting yourself. Both are reputable sources. The Calcalist source, you decided to attack, is great analysis. This journalist was so good that he became Calcalist's hitech editor. Please refrain from such totally false attcks from behind IPs! gidonb (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are blocked already from editing other pages. Please don't disrupt here either. As I said, these two are VERY good sources. gidonb (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not blocked at all, this is ip of a cellular phone, the xellular companies used to change the ip adress frequently, each time they give it to other user. If you knew wikipedia rules you knew that contributors aren't reliable sources and altough routine coverage of a minor deal in a mediocre economy peripherial outlets. You should read deletion duscussions, perhaps you will learn something. But, speaking of blocked, what about Grennwiz ? Maybe you will ask her not to interfere ? She blocked many times and for a long periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:2:2D3A:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her block log looks empty to me. She's an old-time contributor like me. More focused on Israel. I participate in many AfDs. gidonb (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
check again, is this a clean block log ? Of course, she is always pro Israel and on the keep side of the discussion, not very neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:4:6633:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I did not know her as very political or that she was blocked. Just knew she cared about Israeli content. gidonb (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company.
  • Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
  • The topic is a company therefore we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. "Lots of product reviews" is not sufficient for establishing notability of a company.
  • As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. They invariably rely on company press releases, announcements and interviews and do not contain any "Independent Content". Looking at the two references which gidonb describes as "VERY good sources" - the first from ZDNet starts by stating that Logz.io *announced* the latest addition to its portfolio at the AWS reInvent event and that the journalist "caught up with Logz.io CEO, Tomer Levy, to discuss". There's quite a bit of information about the new platform and leaving aside the information provided by the CEO, there is some "Independent Content" in the form of opinion/analysis on the topic company's stance (and that of their competitors) with Open Source. For me though, it is too light and doesn't quite meet WP:CORPDEPTH but if there existed other sources I'd be inclined to include this towards meeting the criteria for notability. Unfortunately, this next reference is based entirely on this press release and information provided by the company and fails ORGIND. I'm happy to change my mind if other references are found that meet NCORP but I'm unable to find any in-depth article that discuss the *company*. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and none appears likely with virtually no input. I feel for the subject, but cannot see any way to close this as delete within policy Star Mississippi 01:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Steiner[edit]

Joshua Steiner (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:BIO and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability issues since 2012. Article subject requests deletion. VRT Ticket 2022032410007624 Geoff | Who, me? 17:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is a NY Times article about his role in Whitewater that is substantially about him, as is the WaPo article that is already a reference. Lamona (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate to default to no consensus with subject requesting it and possible sourcing. So hoping for more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is appropriate because I'm not an expert on your policies. As you can see from the above thread, I requested that you delete the page. My understanding is that if the committee does not reach a consensus, it's possible to delete the page. I hope you might do so. In the absence of doing so, I hope you might then remove the "notability tag" since you've made a decision that it does merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Josh Steiner 67.254.226.129 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. "Too soon" rendered moot by series debuting during extended run. Star Mississippi 01:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Marked Heart[edit]

The Marked Heart (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 yet passes WP:NFF. A good way of promotion before releasing the film/TV series. DMySon (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Per WP:NYF (most hits on google appear to be "TV guide" style), and since there is already a draft, no need to draftfy it. I say "weak" in the sense that it's close enough to its release that it might seem unnecessary. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 13:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Relevant article, whose series had its premiere today. Bradford (Talk)  19:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The WP:NFF argument has been rendered moot after its premiere yesterday. The article likewise meets WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn (film)[edit]

Unicorn (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)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews were found and all citations were of promotion nature ("director's next film", "trailer released", etc.) DonaldD23 talk to me 12:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom since nobody seems to be able to find any reviews. -2pou (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify.. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roy (2021 film)[edit]

Roy (2021 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)

An unreleased film whose production lacks significant and independent coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:NFF. May be draftified until released. Ab207 (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Lacks coverage in independent published sources. Fails both the aforementioned policies by the nominator and WP:CRYSTAL.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is he isn't notable. Should an article on his company be created, happy to provide the text to merge for attribution. Cannot keep this on the grounds that an article might eventuate. Star Mississippi 01:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grady Auvil[edit]

Grady Auvil (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 sources here are either organizations saying they gave Mr. Auvil an award, or non-reliable or primary. What we would need is indepdent sources covering Mr. Auvil either in the context of the award or elsewhere. Just because an organization gives a press release on an award does not make that award notable or getting it a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability, per WP: GNG. Unreliable coverage and not independent. Reads like WP:ADMASQ. NiklausGerard (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The intro refers to the references in the article ("the sources here"), however, per WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The bold is in the source, so we will not disregard it! At the very least, the book Apples (1998) by Frank Browning (author) is an RS that contains WP:SIGCOV. Not making up my mind until a comprehensive WP:BEFORE is done. gidonb (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are numerous articles about the fruit company he founded that mention him, and these articles that are significantly about him:
  • Still Grady. By: Volyn, Kari, Wenatchee Business Journal, 00433365, Jul96, Vol. 10, Issue 7
  • Auvil Fruit Co. President Grady Auvil, 87, sees nothing but prosperity for the next 30 to 40 years, according to an article in the February 1993 issue of the Wenatchee Business Journal Source: Wenatchee Business Journal. Feb, 2013, Vol. 26 Issue 11, p23, 1 p.
  • Legendary Growers Get Star Treatment. Source: American Fruit Grower. Feb2014, Vol. 134 Issue 2, Special section p11-11. 1p.
  • Part Artist, Part Scientist. Source: American Fruit Grower. Nov/Dec2004, Vol. 124 Issue 10, Special section p12-12. 1p.
I don't have access to the full text of all of these and there is the complication that Grady Auvil's son was named John Grady Auvil and may have gone under the name of Grady. I actually think that it would be very easy to support an article for the company which has gotten a lot of press and seems to have been involved in innovations in its field. My main concern with THIS article is the amount of un-referenced biographical information. I'm not sure it can all be sourced. Lamona (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case then maybe we should change this article into a redirect to the article on the company in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there isn't one yet, and it would take some effort to create it. Any volunteers? Lamona (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romil Chaudhary[edit]

Romil Chaudhary (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)

mostly the sources are from random Wikis beside the one which is an Interview thus fails to pass WP:GNG Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 12:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MC Zwieback[edit]

MC Zwieback (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 rapper. Couldn't find significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpana Wilson Bhattacharya[edit]

Kalpana Wilson Bhattacharya (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 suggestion of notability seems to be around 1200 citations of her work as per her Google Scholar profile Mooonswimmer 12:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Women. Mooonswimmer 12:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - according to the Guardian profile linked in the article, "Kalpana Wilson teaches on gender and development at the Gender Institute, London School of Economics, where much of her research focuses on Bihar in eastern India. She is also the author of 'Race, Racism and Development: Interrogating History, Discourse and Practice, published by Zed Books, 2012." Her profile at University of London Birbeck includes more academic background, as does her profile at Bloomsbury Publishing, which also states she is a contributor to The Women, Gender and Development Reader. In an online search, I found a scholarly review for another book she appears to have co-edited: Gender, Agency, and Coercion, and she is a contributor to The SAGE Handbook of Marxism. I'm posting this as a comment for now, before searching the Wikipedia library for reviews of her collective body of work to support potential WP:AUTHOR notability. She is also reported by The Hindu in 2016 to have been a signatory of an open letter protesting caste discrimination in India. Beccaynr (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment None of the facts you found indicate notability, a review of a co-edited book is not enough for WP:AUTHOR and contributions to scholarly work such as the SAGE handbook by itself will not pass WP:PROF. However, her citation count of 1200 citations with four articles with 100+ citations may indicate notability per WP:NPROF#1 as this seems rather high in the social sciences (and has been enough in fields with much higher citation rates). --hroest 21:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have found and added two academic reviews for the co-edited book to the article, and one for the book she wrote, and I have been adding works, including when they have been discussed in other academic articles. There also appears to be a fair amount of activism she has engaged in with other academics that has received press coverage that could form part of a career section. She also writes in a variety of nonacademic forums. I also think the article should be titled "Kalpana Wilson", which appears, at minimum, to be her common name - I have tried to find verification in independent and reliable sources for the extraordinary claims initially asserted in this article, without success. Beccaynr (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Her GScholar profile says her h-index is 14, and according to the h-index article, that is rather high for social sciences. Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep. Far from my area but the GS profile shows 2 works with >200 citations, 2 more >100 and 3 more with >50, most of which are single authored, which seems well above average. I agree that the article should be moved to Kalpana Wilson. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also leaning Keep - I have added more to the article about her career, and I think more can be added about her writing. She is a co-editor of a book that has WP:NBOOK notability based on the two academic reviews, and a collection of work that includes her own book that has been the primary subject of an academic review at least once, and other work that is widely cited, so WP:AUTHOR notability appears supported by information about her career that has currently been found. Beccaynr (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added another scholarly review of her book. pburka (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ViPi project[edit]

ViPi project (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 indication of notability. I couldn't find anything that could be called significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music without sound[edit]

Music without sound (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:OR, cobbled together synthesis, on the nebulous theme of 'music without sound'. Acousmana 12:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Philosophy, and Music. Acousmana 12:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on grounds that TNT is needed. It is near-certain that a good article could be written about silent music, or silence used in music, but the current article is in dreadful shape. It's very badly sourced, it includes random non-sequiturs and bits of terminology snatched from other fields without explanation, justification or reference. It includes all sorts of things that aren't silent music, ranging from performance art (which isn't really music) through to algorithmically-generated music, which is certainly not silent. Classing unfinished compositions as silent because they only existed in the composer's mind is verging on dishonest, and imaginary music is no more silent than an imaginary picture lacks colour. The only bits of the article that are in any way usable are the accounts of genuine silent compositions, and these overlap with List_of_silent_musical_compositions, of which the current article will be a pointless fork if we remove all the irrelevance and unsourced nonsense. Elemimele (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments above; there's at least one potentially interesting topic here, but trimming away all the parts that are more like a blog post than an encyclopedia article would leave nothing. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Adetola-Kazeem[edit]

Ibrahim Adetola-Kazeem (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)

A google search to find citations with the -wiki addition only has four pages, of people that do not seem to be him or sites that are just a copy/paste of this very article. -- NotCharizard 🗨 12:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This article is somewhat WP:SOAP and somewhat status-achievement in content. The reference about his father appearing before the Supreme Court in Nigeria is irrelevent. Two references go to 404. (One is blocked by Browser Guard). A WP:BEFORE (web) brings plenty of primary references; no reliable sources observed. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton in fiction[edit]

Brighton in fiction (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)

A totally unreferenced list of trivia. Fails - take your pick, multiple choice answers allowed: WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:V... Ps. We also have a similar List of films set in Brighton which likely needs to go to... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, and United Kingdom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Been tagged for lack of sources for 14 years. An indiscriminate list of unencyclopedic trivia. AusLondonder (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources, no actual information on the topic as a whole, just a list of trivia. Regardless of any kind of potential notability on the topic, the current article has nothing to preserve. Rorshacma (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This collection of original research, trivia and indiscriminate information has lacked sources for nearly fifteen years. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no sources, non-encyclopaedic list as per AusLondonder. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only on the basis on what harm does it do? I think it's a bit harsh to call the article trivial as I think it's actually quite interesting to see which books feature Brighton. I think it would be better if there was a category for "Brighton in fiction" which would be a useful subistitute for a person reasearching this topic. Having said all that, I have a question about references. How does a list article like this get references anyway?. For example, Brighton is mentioned in Pride and Prejudice, but should a reference be placed on this list page pointing to the page/pages in the actual book, or is the internal link to Pride and Prejudice enough? My point is that the lack of references seems to be a strong criteria for deletion, but I'm wondering how if it really matters? Seaweed (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You should take a look at WP:ATA, as "its harmless" and "its interesting" are both explicitly mentioned as arguments that should be avoided in an AFD discussion. As for sources, as this is essentially a list article, it would fall under the requirements of WP:LISTN. In short, the pieces of fiction themselves used to verify the information is not enough to establish notability for the topic, and there would need to be reliable, secondary sources discussing the topic as a group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seaweed Have you seen WP:ITSHARMLESS? And thank you for making me use this link, it's a very rare argument I never thought I'd actually see :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a work of fiction mentioning something is a primary source. Wikipedia needs to be built on secondary sources. That is sources that analize the mention of the thing. We lack such sources here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as most other editors have commented, Wikipedia is built on secondary sources and this article is substantially missing that. Does not meet WP:V, WP:OR, or even WP:NPOV without some sort of independent and reliable coverage. Even with some trivial coverage, the article would still fail to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and then redirect the page to Binance and semi-protect the redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WazirX[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WazirX (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)

End-to-end WP:PROMO, WP:ADMASQ (once again). Fails WP:SIGCOV, and WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:SPA ID used to revert the changes made by User:MER-C. The page is repeatedly attempted, so there is no doubt about WP:COI/WP:UPE involvement. In last AfD closure, redirection was the best suitable option which was chosen by the closing admin. But, this time, I would recommend WP:SALT if similar attempt is carried out in near future. - Hatchens (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paderborn_method[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Paderborn_method (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)

All of these sources are unreliable or do not support the claims made in the article, possibly save one or two, and I don't think better sources exist. I haven't found evidence that this effect is accepted by the general linguist/educator community, or that this technique is actually used anywhere. Therefore, it suffers from WP:1SOURCE and WP:FRINGE. Justin Kunimune (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Education. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep; I highly doubt that you have evaluated, or even read, "All of these sources". As such, I must disagree with your off-hand assertion (and I don't even get where the WP:1SOURCE is coming from, since the article is clearly not based on just one source). I get that the article isn't in its best shape, but in such cases we should fix the problem (since you have initiated the deletion of the other article dealing with this topic, you should know that there exists enough material to at least fill one article about the topic, but that so far, nobody has performed the necessary merging and copy editing—including myself, I must add. However, a lack of interest or work on Wikipedia doesn't automatically translate to a lack of notability of the topic, see WP:INTROTODELETE: "Generally speaking, notable subjects will be those for which sufficient sourcing is available,"). I do not believe the current reasoning is sufficient to justify deletion of the article, and propose that any issues be dealt with on the article's Talk page. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I also find the way in which this article was proposed for deletion quite hasty: No preliminary tags highlighting the problems, no calls for editors to address these issues, not even a talk page entry, just a straight AfD. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not terribly experienced with the deletion process, so I apologize if the way I went about it was abrupt, but I do think this page fails WP:N, and don't think it can be revised in a way that would solve the underlying problem. While I wasn't able to find all of the sources listed in the "bibliography", I've read and evaluated almost all of the ones in the "references", and accordingly do not think the available sourcing is sufficient to justify an article.
  1. The bulletin from the Italian Ministry for Public Education is questionably reliable since it's a nonscientific government report that reads as quite promotional to me. It also misrepresents the results of most of the studies it cites (it's the basis for most of the article, so it misrepresents them in the same manner described in these subsequent bullet points).
  2. Fischer's study was inconclusive according to the relevant report from the Universal Esperanto Association to the League of Nations.
  3. Eaton's study included one experiment that demonstrated that the Paderborn method works and one that demonstrated that it does not, and Eaton declines to draw firm conclusions.
  4. Halloran's study did support the efficacy of the Paderborn method (albeit only for certain children).
  5. Williams's study was also fine and also supported the method's efficacy.
  6. Vilkki and Setala were not linguists by training, published their work in a magazine, and did not give the details of their methods or results, so it's not reliable.
  7. Kovacs only considered whether Esperanto was easier to learn than natural languages, not whether Esperanto would help with learning natural languages.
  8. Sonnabend's study is irrelevant for the same reason as Kovacs's.
  9. Frank's is the only one on this list that both seems reliable but that I can't find at all.
  10. I have tried but can't figure out who Formaggio was or where she published her work, so I don't think it's reliable.
  11. Piron's source is just a personal blog.
The other page whose deletion I initiated did not have any reliable and topical sources that this one doesn't. As far as other relevant sourced material, the only things that come close are Tellier's work, which considered children's metalinguistic awareness after studying Esperanto but not their proficiency in subsequent languages, and Bishop's work, which was not peer-reviewed or formally published. There are also some secondary sources like Maxwell's and Fantini's, but they all describe the Paderborn method as an unverified hypothesis in need of further testing.
Williams, Frank, and Halloran are the only sources I would consider both reliable and in favor of the idea that this method is real. I acknowledge that the bibliography section contains many additional sources that I haven't read, but only because for the vast majority of them, I can't even verify that they exist, either on the internet or through my university's library. Given that plus the fact that this bibliography is basically copy-pasted from the Ministry bulletin I don't think they should be considered reliable. Though to be fair, Lobin and Markarian both seem to be reliable secondary sources in favor of this method, citing Frank and Halloran, respectively.
I'm realizing I was probably using WP:1SOURCE too loosely when I applied it here, but I still think this falls under WP:FRINGE. Very few studies have been conducted on the topic, and most that have are inconclusive. Most secondary sources echo that sentiment. I suppose this article could possibly be kept and reframed as a description of a handful of experiments studying a hypothetical effect, and cite Eaton, Williams, Frank, Halloran, Tellier, and some secondary sources. Smideliusz's lexical analyses on the topic could then be included to flesh it out a bit. But I just don't think there would be enough material there to justify a full article. Though now I consider it, redirecting to the couple of paragraphs on the Esperanto page probably is justified. Justin Kunimune (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me :). We could redirect and include some of the more reliable materials in the relevant Esperanto sections, although that will make the main Esperanto article even more massive, which I'm not a big fan of. While I agree that the notability is an issue, I would be quite careful with applying WP:FRINGE to this, especially given that We [Wikipedia] use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support.; the ideas about L2 learning/teaching behind these studies don't significantly depart from the mainstream views, namely that learning subsequent languages becomes easier after the first L2 language, that of course languages that are "simpler" are easier to learn (compare French and Spanish orthography, and even phonology for that matter, and resulting differences in early reading/listening comprehension for L2 learners)—and that, in combination, these ideas could be used to ease language learning. Of course, using Esperanto to do this type of instruction is not a mainstream tool of first resort, but that is not a reason to dismiss it, and scientific studies (not blog articles, of course) looking into whether this could work are not fringe, but simply open-ended research.
TL;DR So, what would I propose doing with the article? Trim the article radically, add new sources, reorganize, then write out what we have and what is supported by reliable sources, and then see if deletion is still necessary. Describe the Paderborn method as a proposed method of language-teaching, then explain the different studies/scientific works underpinning the idea (but also that many of them came to no conclusion, neither affirming nor disproving it), and also include the Springboard to Languages project and its evaluation as an additional, more recent pioneer project and source. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Justin Kunimune please notice: in the list you gave 2-8 are not supporting the experiment of Paderborn; if you read the article more carefully, they are just presenting other experiments done before Paderborn. They probably were not done with very scientifical methods, so what we need is just a prove of their existence. They are anyway important as prove that the mechanism was already known and somebody was trying to demonstrate it since long time. The Paderborn experiment took place in Late 1970s to early 1980s as clearly exposed in the article. The scientific method used in Paderborn is the reason why the article has name Paderborn Method and not Bishop Auckland Method. That's because the experiment done in 1918 in Bishop Auckland was probably not done with scientific methods; anyway it was done, and there is Fisher's article that proves that. Other sources you can find in the bibliography: Lobin, Halloran, Frank; I would say these 3 sources are the columns of the article. Francescost (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm looking at this solely from the point of view of reliable sources and I do see this "method" discussed in some depth in both articles and books. That some of these determine that the method does not work doesn't negate the attention. I second the suggestions by TucanHolmes. Lamona (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iaw Lamona. @User:TucanHolmes, please WP:AGF. Springnuts (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

,

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Mansour[edit]

Ayman Mansour (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 sigcov Ficaia (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, why is being an international player a reason to keep? Has a guideline been changed that I'm unaware of? –dlthewave ☎ 12:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My keep is also per WP:GNG and the sources identified below. gidonb (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NSPORT is very clear on the fact that all athletes must have the significant coverage to pass the general notability guideline, regardless of any appearances for a national team, something that my fellow keep-!voters seem to be forgetting. That said, I feel that the subject passes WP:GNG with coverage such as this.[4][5][6][7] Alvaldi (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep International player, there are sources out there as evident per above. Govvy (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 34 caps for Egypt. Why do User:Dlthewave and User:Ficaia again, and again, fail to ever ever search for coverage of people who obviously are going to be notable and have significant coverage, WP:BEFORE nominating or voting. The references above (which long post-date his playing career) meet GNG. Nfitz (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ficaia: this is one you can close early since there is no support for deletion. Do you still think this should be deleted in light of the uncovered sources? Avilich (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 13:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman Biddle[edit]

Chapman Biddle (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)

His service in the American Civil War was not especially distinguished, and there really isn't anything else. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've added the book to the references section of the article. KylieTastic (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep per peacemaker's finds, although noting that the coverage in Gottfried is pretty much only about his brigade not him, and Pfanz only really dedicated two sentences specifically to him and is again mainly about the brigade. Hog Farm Talk 22:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iaw WP:GNG - at least two good sources with substantial coverage. Springnuts (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman Baehler[edit]

Chapman Baehler (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. I couldn't find any good sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm not finding enough to substantiate the notability of this photographer per WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. He certainly has photographed and filmed notable people, but the only significant coverage about him that I see is the MTV piece, the rest are simple name-checks, press-releases or social media.Netherzone (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bakaj[edit]

Joe Bakaj (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 NBIO. Coverage is either: non-independent profiles; coverage of board appointments and retirements; coverage of other topics (Ford EcoBoost and Mazda MX-5) where they are mentioned as they were the one speaking to the reporters, or writing the press release. Also lacks sources. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. North America1000 07:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Bates[edit]

Horace Bates (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 notable, played 9 matches 200 years ago, nothing notable besides this fact Artem.G (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inclined towards Keep based on previous discussions at NSPORTS. Because he played for Kent sides there are some sources on him - which I've worked into the article. There's an outside changed I might be able to find a little more, although I doubt it. In the discussions which were had at NSPORTS over the last couple of years, the level of sourcing I've been able to put into the article has been accepted as being just about OK. But it is only just about OK and relies heavily on the Carlaw source. Given that Carlaw quotes - from somewhere - something about him, it's clear that he was described in some other source - whether that as Ashley-Cooper's book on Kent matches, Harris' History of Kent Cricket or Haygarth in Scores and Biographies I don't know - because Carlaw doesn't say. That lends some credit to the idea of keeping in this case - clearly there are other sources which described the player.
An ATD would be a redirect to List of Kent county cricketers to 1842, which I would suggest is probably the best alternative in this case. Given that obvious redirect candidates exist (and that a BEFORE search on "Horace Bates cricket" throws up the Carlaw source on the first page) I'm a little disappointed that this has come to AfD at all - wouldn't a merge discussion be more appropriate? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BST has found a suitable amount of information on him for a GNG pass. There's a redirect as BST suggests if it is deemed not enough for notability, although with the sourcing now present I don't think this will be the case. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after good expansion work by BST. As for the nom, I would have though that playing nine first-class matches strongly suggests notability as a player. Was any BEFORE done? NGS Shakin' All Over 22:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per what BST has found; I'm surprised that the nominator, who appears to be experienced, is using the fact he played matches over 200 years as a reason for deletion. StickyWicket (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I use 200 years as an indicator: if nothing significant was written about the subject, it can be said that nobody deemed it notable. I do think that a stub of one or two sentence with zero or one source shouldn't exist, there is no chance that such draft would be accepted at AfC. But maybe you are right, and as sports is not my topic I probably wouldn't nominate more such articles for deletion. Artem.G (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And you can't deny that after the nomination it was rewritten by knowledgeable editor, and looks like a real article now? AfD can be good not only for deletion but also for rescue, when somebody rewrites bad stubs and expands them significantly. I doubt it would be ever expanded without this nomination. Artem.G (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - but please don't swamp us! It might be better to bring people up at the cricket project and give us a few weeks or months. Some of them are easy, others take much more work - the New Zealander that someone else has nominated just now, for example, is a real trawl through thousands of newspaper articles. Which is nice, but I have to go to work next week! Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Artem.G, we don't use AfD as a means of getting an article expanded. That end does not justify the means. There's something about this in policy but I can't find it at the moment. You need to read the WHOLE of WP:BEFORE to see what your responsibilities are as a prospective nominator. As BST has just said, one of the acts is to raise it with the creator or at the projects. NGS Shakin' All Over 10:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I really though that these several subjects were not notable enough for WP. Sorry for that, wouldn't happen again. Artem.G (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Artem.G: no need to apologise. With regard to cricketers from the 19th-century, especially the early part, it's not so much they may not have been deemed notable, it's that the publications which featured them either are lost, or have not been digitalised yet. I've been working on redlinks on List of Cambridge Town Club and Cambridgeshire cricketers and many of these players were undoubtedly celebrities of their time, quite notable as cricketers and personalities and the problem I have found is finding surviving sources for them. Many I have found things for, but others have been a struggle, but there can be little doubt in the 1830s–1860s, these guys were very famous and notable individuals, more so than say a Joe Weatherley of today, who has recent coverage but very few people outside of die-hard cricket fans would have heard of. StickyWicket (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825). While there are assertions that sourcing must exist, it has not surfaced during this discussion and given his life span, unlikely a relist will help with that. The Keep voters also mostly express support for a redirect, or do not take issue with one. Since we have the redirect as a valid AtD, there is no reason to delete. This also preserves the attribution should sourcing turn up and this be spun back out. Star Mississippi 13:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bache[edit]

Thomas Bache (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 notable, just played 11 matches Artem.G (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 11 matches is quite a lot. CricketArchive claims he was an MP for Dumfries Burghs - which is also what his entry in the Eton School List says (although I can't find any confirmation of this elsewhere). Other sources suggest he was in the British Army (as a Cornet from 1833 - although I wonder if this is a different TOB) and The Northampton Mercury of 8 April 1843 tells us On the 1st instant, at the Pomfret Arms Towcester, Thomas Ogle Bache, Esq., of Rickmansworth, Herts, aged 47. He had been hunting with Lord Southampton's hounds, and complained of being ill on his return, and about half-past one o'clock on Saturday morning he died of apoplexy. A coroner's inquest was held on the afternoon of Saturday, before R. Weston. Esq., Brackley, and the jury returned a verdict of Apoplexy. and the Leamington Spa Courier 18 November 1843 is also helpful (see edit history). And that's just for starters. On those grounds I'd be tempted to Keep for now at least. At the very worst an ATD exists in the form of a redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825). Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Think I'm at keep at this current stage on this one. There seems to be some sourcing on him that suggests a GNG pass. If it can be confirmed he was infact a sitting MP then I'd be strong keep. If it is deemed not enough for notability List of English cricketers (1787–1825) is a suitable redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with reservations about the Dumfries Burghs MP claim because this name isn't listed. Could he have had a pseudonym or a change of name? I fail to see how not notable, just played 11 matches can be taken as anything other than a waste of time. Obviously, no BEFORE done. Again. NGS Shakin' All Over 22:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think he was an MP, I've searched high and low for any proof and think Eton College must have got confused somewhere along the line. That said, I am satisfied enough coverage exists to compliment his cricket career. StickyWicket (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I tend to agree about the MP bit - but then Eton's record on MPs is a bit dubious anyway... Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! That's one to merit a place alongside Dan Stevens. Brilliant. NGS Shakin' All Over 10:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, for now We still need actual demonstrated coverage to show that he shouldn't be redirected. If CricketArchive says he was an MP and he wasn't, that doesn't bode well for its reliability as a source. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly certain CricketArchive would be taking that from the Eton School List and would have no reason to doubt that. Given that a bunch of us have looked and can't see the connection, however, means we are doubting Eton's reliability. A bit like their recent "exam" results. I'll try to get to the article and add in what we can at some point: I think there's stuff there which will help a little. Whether it is quite enough is an interesting question. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the subject was an MP, then the subject would pass WP:NPOL and the discussion would come to a quick end. That said, it does appear that the claim is not verified (by a second independent source) and we are back to determining whether the subject passes WP:GNG. (I will note, I was not able to find anything supporting the MP claim.) -- Enos733 (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of the rumoured RS, fails WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article has been expanded and improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Anguish[edit]

Charles Anguish (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)

probably not notable, no sources present Artem.G (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep - probably was notable as he appears to have been a member of the Anguish family which owned land across East Anglia. This blog source (so itself not suitable, but what it quotes is) says Charles Anguish alias Clarke (1769-97), born 13 February and baptised 15 March 1769; a noted early cricketer and member of the MCC, playing in forty major matches, 1788-95; Comptroller of Customs at Cape of Good Hope, 1797; died unmarried there, 25 May 1797; his obituary in the Gentleman's Magazine recorded that "he was a young man of abilities and of a good temper, but with so odd a cast of manners that he was perpetually on the brink of a quarrel, even with those who knew his intentions were quite harmless, and could make every allowance for his peculiarities";. Based on the job and the obituary (although he only made 32 appearances in fc matches). ATD exist if required.
e2a: also mentioned here and apparently in The Cricketer, which is available online (although it seems Ashley-Cooper got the fates wrong, obviously) and here possibly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
further e2a: CricketCountry has an article which adds a little more as well - I've had moments where I've been unhappy with that site as a source, but mainly because of hyperbole. There's none in this article; I think it'd help. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have no sources rising to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think there's just enough on him and him playing in 30 odd matches for a GNG pass. BST has found some sourcing on him and a more detailed dig with the information we have now would likely bring more. There is a suitable redirect at List of English cricketers (1787–1825) if it is deemed not enough for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again, no WP:BEFORE has been done. If the article has no sources, you tag it accordingly, not bring it to AfD. If the man played in 30+ first-class cricket matches, he was notable. The article needs development and it needs citations. This is yet another bad nom. NGS Shakin' All Over 22:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 32 appearances at first-class level, so clearly a notable figure in the early days of cricket, and seemingly notable as a colonial figure in The Cape. This is an example where an article should be expanded, not deleted. StickyWicket (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Must admit I've been a bit confused over this one because the article says he played in 40 major matches but this discussion holds that he played in 32 first-class matches. I'm not sure what's meant by major matches because wouldn't they only have been first-class in those days, what with no limited overs or T20? Anyway, I was writing to one of my mates and I mentioned this. His reply has arrived and he says the 40 must be a mistake – Anguish did play in 32 first-class matches. I've got his source so I'll correct the article. NGS Shakin' All Over 10:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @No Great Shaker: I'm guessing he probably played minor matches for a team which also had first-class status for some of their matches, and these minor matches being for a major team were considered major matches. Then when retrospective FC status was applied that number of major matches got reduced by 8! StickyWicket (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, StickyWicket. That could well be it. A bit like an EFL team playing against a non-league team, perhaps. Thanks. All the best. NGS Shakin' All Over 19:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article expanded significantly since nomination, no valid rationale as it appears the WP:BEFORE was not done. NemesisAT (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is the sourcing isn't limited to local and she's therefore notable. I'd advise TPH that comments such as Alana Grace hasn't done jack shit outside of Nashville are neither helpful nor civil. Star Mississippi 13:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Grace[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alana Grace (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 musician. Did a couple of soundtrack songs and played on a couple tours, but established no notability of her own. Zero sourcing found. Previously survived an AFD in 2006 on the existence of the soundtrack cut, but that's not enough when there's nothing else to say about her that confers notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not Tennessee, it's entirely Nashville. There are literally thousands of musicians who get day-in, day-out coverage in Nashville but are completely unknown outside of it. Alana Grace hasn't done jack shit outside of Nashville. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Tennessee is not entirely Nashville.
  • Comment – The statement above, "It's not Tennessee, it's entirely Nashville", is incorrect. While the The Tennessean is based in Nashville, its circulation covers 39 out of the 41 counties in Middle Tennessee and eight counties in southern Kentucky. This is certainly regional coverage, and certainly not "just Nashville", not by a long shot. Southern Kentucky is also not just Nashville, it's entirely part of another state. Also, WP:BASIC has no requirement for sources to be non-local based or regional in nature. Also, it's irrelevant whether or not the musician has worked outside of Nashville, as this notion is not included in any deletion policies or guidelines. North America1000 05:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 11:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ofinno[edit]

Ofinno (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)

Telecommunications company does not seem to meet WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hecatoncheires (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Hecatoncheires (Dungeons & Dragons) (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)

Article fails WP:GNG with a total lack of WP:SIGCOV. Reception is based on trivial mentions in lists. A minor monster that is not notable enough for its own article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for failing to find Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons! That would be a good merge target (and redirect). Elemimele (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daranios below, or Merge/redirect per Piotrus - it is currently mentioned at Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons and previously redirected there. BOZ (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge/redirect: How this should be judged depends on if the web articles should not be useable for some overarching reason. Each of the four has a paragraph of content which tells us why in a game with very many monsters this one is exceptional. So these are not a trivial mentions. Also, in contrast to many other monster article brought up for deletion, this one does not at all suffer from an excess of plot summary (though in fairness that was not a criticism in the nomination). So if the sources count, and I personally think they should (and I already know that others have a different opinion, so no need to spend too much time with this here), this meets WP:GNG. If they shouldn't, I obviously prefer a merge to deletion, probably best to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Daranios (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on sourcing: I don't honestly think this sourcing is great. Two references are primary to the rule-book; "The Gamer" just regurgitates the monster's characteristics presumably as per definition in the primary source, while the other three are all in ScreenRant which I'll accept is okayish; it's determined as marginally reliable in our perennial sources. They're not in-depth write-ups, they're all in lists of "here are a few monsters I like" type articles. There's a general problem about fantasy sources like this: in most sports and games, writers are writing about what someone else did or thinks: chess authors write that an opening is strong because someone else played it and won. Snooker authors write about who won which game and what shots they're good at. Whereas these D&D articles are all basically the personal opinion of one guy one morning; they feel a bit primary. But maybe this is my bias. Elemimele (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to whichever article is deemed to be most appropriate. Even if those "Top Ten" style lists are deemed acceptable sources, which is debatable, the actual content regarding this monster in them is not extensive at all - all of them are mostly just a description of them straight from the actual game, with only a few sentences of any kind of actual analysis/discussion beyond that. Rorshacma (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like there is a beginning consensus to merge or redirect this article but less certainty on where to merge or redirect to. How about the suggestion of Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. There is a longer conversation to have about the reliability of ScreenRant and whether it provides any quality of coverage to create a Wikipedia article. But the shorter answer is there are no reliable independent sources to create something that meets the WP:GNG here. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics of science[edit]

Aesthetics of science (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 any significant notability. Three of the four refs all track back to a single author and the fifth ref from "Nature" talks of "Beauty and wonder of science" and doesn't mention aesthetics. It is WP:OR to infer aesthetics from a source that doesn't mention is. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   21:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Breitenbach, A. (2013). "Aesthetics in Science: A Kantian Proposal". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, CXIII, 83– 100.
  • Chandrasekher, S. (1987) Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivation in Science. The University of Chicago Press
  • Crease, R. (2002). "The most beautiful experiment", Physics World.
  • Currie, A. (2020). "Epistemic engagement, aesthetic value & Scientific Practice". The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
  • Engler, G. (1990) "Aesthetics in science and art", British Journal of Aesthetics, 30:24-33.
  • Fischer, E. P. (1991). Beauty and the Beast: The aesthetic moment in science. Springer US. (This one's on Open Library)
  • Holmes, F. (1996) "Beautiful Experiments in the Life Sciences". in A.I.Tauber (ed.) The Elusive Synthesis: Aesthetics and Science, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 83-101.
  • Hossenfelder, S. (2018). Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physicists Astray. Basic Books.
  • Kivy, P. (1991). "Science and aesthetic appreciation". Midwest Studies In Philosophy, 26, 180– 195.
  • Kosso, P. (2002). "The omnisienter: Beauty and scientific understanding". International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 16, 39– 48.
  • Montano, U. (2014). Explaining beauty in mathematics: An aesthetic theory of mathematics (Vol. 370). Synthese Library.
  • Parsons, G. (2012). "The aesthetics of chemical biology". Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 16, 576– 580.
  • Reuger, A. (1997) "Experiments, Nature and Aesthetic Experience in the Eighteenth Century". British Journal of Aesthetics, 37: 305-322.
  • Todd, C. S. (2008). "Unmasking the truth beneath the beauty: Why the supposed aesthetic judgments made in science may not be aesthetic at all". International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 22, 61– 79.
  • Turner, D. (2019). Paleoaesthetics and the practice of paleontology. Cambridge University Press.
  • Zee, A. (1999) Fearful Symmetry: the Search for Beauty in Modern Physics. Princeton, Princeton University Press (Open Library)

—Dan from A.P. (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources tallied above are the merest sampling of the extensive writings that have been generated on the topic of aesthetic judgments in science, finding aesthetic merit in scientific discoveries, etc. The nomination's distinction between aesthetics and beauty is artificial; the former is the study of the latter. XOR'easter (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how this works, but just want to chime in that an article for mathematical beauty exists and is reasonably well written and has a lot of relevant content. I presume something like this can be done for science. Perhaps we can rename to "scientific beauty"? ("Beauty in Science" sounds like the science of why people find things beauty, which is not what we want, right?) QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny you should say that — I just added mathematical beauty to the "See also" list of this article. While "what about this other page" isn't always a good argument (sometimes the other page only exists because nobody has noticed it and put it up for deletion yet), in this case, I do think that the existence of one, and the fact that it's in OK shape, is evidence that we can make something of the other. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is the sourcing isn't there to keep this article Star Mississippi 13:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth F. Goldstein[edit]

Kenneth F. Goldstein (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)

De-prodded with addition of sources, but the sources added are either WP:PRIMARY, not reliable, or passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Sources are not independent nor reliable. NiklausGerard (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well I de-prodded it because the sources are all reliable and the subject is also an author of 3 books/novels plus other involvements. I just read WP:GNG and it states A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So, as per my knowledge I believe it meets the criteria. Thank you JK.Kite (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the coverage you speak of, though? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per my experience on Wikipedia and statements of WP:GNG I believe this is enough in this case but if you really think this article should be removed I have no problem at all. I only give my neutral point of view because I have seen many other articles that are still on Wikipedia for no reason. Anyway, I respect your opinion but I still believe it passes WP:GNG. JK.Kite (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello, I included several sources mentioning the subject. 71.223.99.63 (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning isn't enough. They have to be mainly about him, not just name-dropped in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— 71.223.99.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I suspect that some ballot box stuffing is going on
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As has been noted elsewhere, the AFD nominator shouldn't relist an AFD discussion. There are plenty of editors and admins who can take care of that step. Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Judging by the sources, this should pass WP:GNG. CaptainGalaxy 23:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Does not pass NAUTH. No evidence of his books in libraries (Worldcat), no reviews in the more reliable sources (Publishers Weekly, Kirkus) and he has no VIAF entry which means that no library in Worldcat has created an entry for any of his books. So the books listed here do not confer notability. Note that his books were published as "Ken Goldstein" not "Kenneth" and that's how you find him on Amazon. Lamona (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I went through all the sources and trimmed out all the ones that failed verification or came from clearly unreliable sources. What remains seems to be trivial mentions that don't appear to confer notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as ferret hates me for doing this, I am going to participate and say delete for this article due to failed notability. There is just not enough significant coverage. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Passing references and an interview do not add up to multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. Springnuts (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Meg Wolitzer. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Interestings[edit]

The Interestings – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Interestings was never picked up for by Amazon Prime. The show only aired a pilot and the page only has three references. The show does not meet wikipedia's standards for notability and should be deleted. Mannysoloway (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because only the pilot was aired doesn't mean it can't be notable. The pilot has received significant in depth coverage in reliable sources. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rawafed Private School[edit]

Rawafed Private 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)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sports School Zmina Kyiv[edit]

Sports School Zmina Kyiv (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)

Article fails general notability guideline. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. XtraJovial (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas, City of Dreams[edit]

Vegas, City of Dreams (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:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Debating Robert Lee[edit]

Debating Robert Lee (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:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Fear[edit]

Naked Fear (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:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree that there is very little in the way of significant coverage and I can't find much beyond passing mentions. Some in-depth reviews may be useful, but RT shows none and I can't see any elsewhere. Media coverage from 2007 is very thin in relation to this film too. I'd probably be leaning delete. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found one very good source, but that's pretty much all I found and it's not enough to keep on that basis alone. It looks like this went straight to video with pretty much no fanfare other than a few halfhearted announcements here and there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth Fighter[edit]

Stealth Fighter (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:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm honestly pretty surprised that I wasn't able to find coverage, given the actors in the film. Granted I'm aware that all of them were doing straight to video work quite frequently but still - those are some pretty big names. You'd have thought that someone would have reviewed or covered it somewhere. Hopefully someone else can find coverage I may have missed but I couldn't find anything other than junk hits and TV listings. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 11:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soti Triantafyllou[edit]

Soti Triantafyllou (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 is written like an advertisement. There are no reliable sources on the web, whilst her academic achievements are impossible to assess as there is no information on Google Scholar or other institutions she claimed to have attended. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Three discussions in GBooks on the first page of results and a thesis review of four of her works. Seems to pass notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep award winning novelist. pburka (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also I encourage participants to review the page's history. The nominator removed a list of her awards immediately before nominating the article for deletion. pburka (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ample sourcing can be found in Greek (see this search; [12]) as well as some articles in English e.g. [13]. Clearly passes WP:GNG. --GGT (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A search demonstrate the notability of the subject and passes WP:NAUTHOR. DMySon (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_April_15

Leave a Reply