Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< February 14 February 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. Star Mississippi 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco Reed[edit]

Rocco Reed (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 substantial coverage outside of adult industry publications. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: The statement above should be disregarded since it has no connection to wikipedia policy.TheFinalMigration (talk) 21:25, 19 February 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 01:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Pumper[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brian Pumper (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 coverage outside of industry publications, except for a brief mention in an article about someone else. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Musical Work listed on Spotify with over 200 monthly listeners.[1] Crime news attention.[2] Rusty5231B (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having 200 listeners on Spotify is not an independent secondary source. What you'd need is a secondary reliable source discussing him and his music. Also, VladTV is not a reliable source. VLADTV is presently offering an opportunity for users to submit articles and related or included photographs, music, videos, interviews, news content, software, and any other Writer-generated information (“Articles”) for consideration for publication on the VLADTV Website using the “VladTV Writer Tool.” The Writer Tool is being provided at the sole and absolute discretion of VLADTV, and may be terminated at any time without prior notice to you, or to any individual user who has submitted an article (a “Submitter”). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#listing_sources_at_AfD_instead_of_just_fixing_the_article? contained a suggestion to fix the article rather than list additional citations here. Article fixes have been made. Rusty5231B (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed pretty much all of that as poorly sourced. Citing a blog post that is an attack piece on another BLP to state in this BLPs article that they are look alikes? Citing passing attacks on them in interviews in their article? Citing a blog post on noisy about who they would cast in a movie that doesn't exist? Citing a gossip column in a BLP to make claims about this BLP and another BLP? Citing Gawker, which is generally unreliable at WP:RSP for claims about BLPs? None of that was fit for an article, especially a BLP article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "spotify".
  2. ^ "Pumper Arrested".

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

  • Delete fails WP:ANYBIO: AVN awards, not notable. No SIGCOV in other areas of his work. SN54129 09:56, 16 February 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! 22:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howl at the Moon piano bar[edit]

Howl at the Moon piano bar (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 business. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 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. per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 21:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedding (2021 film)[edit]

The Wedding (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)

Does not meet WP:NFILM. ––FormalDude talk 23:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course it meets criteria. Including due to the fact that in the first week (!) in Poland it was watched by 140,000 people (link) + two awards at the Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival (link). Atlantico 000 (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm looking and found quite a bit of coverage. More could absolutely be added, but what I'm finding shows that there will absolutely be more coverage out there. Apparently the film got more than its fair share of controversy considering the topic - which is not a surprise given how controversial the topic of WWII and Poland is on Wikipedia. --ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To editor FormalDude: I am curious if user FormalDude did any research before submitting the article for deletion, as its encyclopedic character (as a blockbuster film by an acclaimed director) is obvious. Atlantico 000 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 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. Sandstein 21:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Scotia[edit]

Sydney Scotia (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:TOOSOON. No major independent coverage or notable roles. Bettydaisies (talk) 23:42, 14 February 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kuşadasıspor[edit]

Kuşadasıspor (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 club with no SIGCOV. The only sources I could mention are statistic websites or trivial. Moving on, Kuşadasıspor also fails WP:FOOTYN, as they have never played in the Turkish Cup from what I can tell. However, I will be ok if this article is soft deleted or draftified if enough work is done to improve AND find sources. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment PROD removed with no improvement to the article. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Keep? Technically they do pass WP:FOOTYN, they do play in the Turkish Cup with five record games on soccerway.com and here is one of their qualifying round games [1]. Govvy (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Govvy, has played in the national cup and therefore considered notable. Needs improving, not deleting. Nominator has clearly not bothered with BEFORE to try and find sources. GiantSnowman 09:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Govvy passes WP:FOOTYN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm obviouly not eligible to vote this pool, but, I'd like to underline that this team competed at TFF First League, second highest football competition of the country, as well. If this club fails notability, so many clubs will need to follow. Regards. Isik (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Playing in the national cup alone is not a NFOOTYN pass: it clearly states that a club must pass the GNG, and notes that playing in the cup generally indicates that there is a GNG pass (and NFOOTYN is an essay anyways, so I see no reason to bring it up). However, I've added some extra sources (result of only a nine minute work), and I suspect there are quite more not run-of-the-mill sources out there. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination hinges on an erroneous statement about cup play, and the nominator's personal inability to find sources. (For what it's worth, I'm not great at browsing in the Turkish language either.) Geschichte (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found those few sources I posted in a few seconds of a google search! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing Nomination I realize I had made a mistake here. Apologies if this inconvenienced anyone. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 23:14, 16 February 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) (t · c) buidhe 23:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir R. Andrabi[edit]

Tahir R. Andrabi (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 Yousef Raz (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator"[reply]

Delete , no WP:SIGCOV both sources are from a university. The two sources hardly qualify as "Independent of the subject" or WP:SECONDARYYousef Raz (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C5. Lack of coverage is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to expand the page with IRSs. Cabrils (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the deletion nominator here first nominating and then also voting at the same time to delete the article?
Comment Am I not allowed to expand my reason for nomination?Yousef Raz (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cabrils as a straightforward WP:NPROF #5 pass, and suggest nominator withdraw the nomination. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:32, 15 February 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! 22:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Marquis[edit]

Hank Marquis (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 general notability guidelines and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. I don't see any significant coverage about Hank Marquis himself by reliable sources EvergreenFir (talk) 19:50, 15 February 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. ✗plicit 23:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Clark (actor)[edit]

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

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

  • Keep - American Film Institute source lists 240 films as actor, 2 as producer, 1 as a writer, 1 as production misc, and 1 as a stand-in. And that doesn't count his television work. He is notable. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as he was in a significant number of movies.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhargav Sri Prakash[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

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

  • Delete I examined the first 20 references. There is 3 interviews that fail WP:BLPPRIMARY, lots of passing mentions and several profiles, one of which is quite big but all of them are in relation to FriendLearn. There is no secondary sourcing. Nothing in Gbooks Google Scholar has an entry: [2] but it is not sufficient to pass WP:NPROF. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 23:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disclose that I have edited this article and related articles in the period of the last 3 years since i joined with a wikipedia account. I do not have COI as I have tried to explain here on noticeboard thread.

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

My opinion is this article could be improved instead of deleted because of following reasons. This living person has gained verifiable online coverage at least since 2012. Some articles describe him in headline as "pioneer",[1] in the body of article as "inventor of digital vaccines",[2] and in tables as "notable and renowned Indian entrepreneur"[3], "notable list of alumni"[4], etc. This provides evidence for WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV. The flowery adjectives may have been copied in to the article over time which has now made it into an unacceptable promotional tone, which I think can be corrected with involvement of experienced editors. I myself have made mistake of language tone as experienced editor has pointed to me. For kind information, many students in College of Engineering, Guindy Anna University hostel and living close to campus must be editing CEG related pages, like even me when I was a student.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

  • Comment It's hard to know where to begin with this one - there are way too many references to check fully. But here are a few I did look at: 1) I cannot verify the existence of the "International Refereed Journal of Reviews and Research" (last reference). There is a web site with such a name [3] but it has published only one issue and seems unrelated to the citation here. 2) I also can find no trace of the publication listed here as a book - which oddly has an ISSN. The foundation listed as publisher exists but I have failed to locate the publication 3) this person has published 2 or 3 articles, all with 6 or more other authors (may be normal for that field), and the 2 that I find in Google Scholar have each been cited only once. What this tells me is that it will be hard to know how notable this person is without looking at all or at least most of the references. I also wonder about the lengthy section on tennis, which seems unrelated to the focus of the article and could be summed up in a simple sentence: "In his youth he played tennis competitively." Lamona (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's so much chicanery going on in references. In addition to problems identified above by Lamona, punjabmirror.com, a blog, is listed as published by Bennett, Coleman and Co. There are multiple refs to scienmag.com, a content scraping site who have had their twitter account suspended. So many refs to self-published content. Two are direct wordpress/.blog sites. Screening for notable publications, all (Hindu, Financial Express, ET) are interviews or product announcements. The journal cites are to papers authored by the subject or about the product of his company; they don't even begin to satisy WP:NACADEMIC. Elsewhere on the web, Google news shows only product related hits. Most of the top search hits have been included in the article here and none appear independent. Hemantha (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis article sure deserves an advert/POV/COI tag but I believe that we ought to make sure that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Indeed there are unreliable sources wordpress blogs/lists that must be weeded out as Hemantha has pointed out but I have found numerous reliable secondary sources that provide evidence to satisfy GNG. After trying to unravel the spaghetti in this article (incl talk pages) - and having searched and studied the background references (which I copy-paste from the existing article to make it easier for other editors to dissect this), my view is that notability of this person is primarily attributed to accomplishments as an entrepreneur and inventor, not WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:ATHLETE. I must confess that I do not understand digital vaccines but I scanned through WP:PRIMARY the official CM website
  • His invention of digital vaccine and fooya health game has obtained coverage from many reputable organizations (which have editors/boards and authors). There is a trail of markers of evolution spanning more than a decade. Reliable secondary sources demonstrate synthesis of positive and negative news.

The strongest WP:SECONDARY WP:MEDRS is from a peer reviewed publication of a systematic review in journal of Global Health Promotion about the product he created. It has been indexed by the US National Library of Medicine. It provides findings based on an independent analysis by that paper's authors who have disclosed no ties/COI with this individual/his affiliated organizations or the fooya app. The authors conclude that the fooya program is more effective at engaging children as a result of gamification among evidence based cardiovascular disease prevention initiatives evaluated for effectiveness in an educational setting.[1]

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

The intellectual property case with moderna therapeutics has been covered as a result of what appears to be an investigative piece by Firstpost - a fairly reliable secondary source.[2]

These provide further evidence of notability that is not based on WP:PRIMARY interviews or announcements.[3][4]

I think it is reasonable to assume that The Times of India[5], PTI[6], ANI[7] will not publish an announcement from an unvetted primary source. I base my logic on the view that a non notable person or insignificant organization is unlikely to gain coverage of their announcement from a number of reputable media channels, particularly in the way they describe and attribute him as 'inventor' [8] (listed as Editor's pick article, which is not in Wiki article btw).

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

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

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

References

  1. ^ Francisca Bertilia Chaves Costa; Lana Paula Crivelaro Monteiro de Almeida (14 March 2020). "Use of Educational Technologies in the Promotion of Children's Cardiovascular Health: A Systematic Review". Global Health Promotion. 27 (4): 32–41. doi:10.1177/1757975920909119. PMID 32172651. S2CID 212729023.
  2. ^ Nikhila Natarajan (21 January 2018). "Indian start-up resists Boston firm's bid to trademark digital vaccines". First Post.
  3. ^ https://digitalhealth.med.brown.edu/news/2020-12-04/digital-vaccines
  4. ^ https://www.edexlive.com/people/2019/may/31/chennai-based-parent-develops-an-app-that-gets-kids-to-fight-junk-monsters-and-count-their-calories-6373.html
  5. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/now-digital-vaccines-to-help-promote-healthy-eating-in-kids/articleshow/80010923.cms
  6. ^ https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/fooya-founder-in-patent-war-over-digital-vaccine-with-us-117122500406_1.html
  7. ^ https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/chennai-based-company-launches-app-to-educate-children-on-healthy-food-choices20210306042748/
  8. ^ https://business.medicaldialogues.in/fooya-and-moderna-in-patent-war-over-digital-vaccine
Unless there are multiple independent reviews of multiple products or extensive in-depth reviews of the single product, they do not count towards the notability of the product creator. ToI ref is completely about the product. PTI/ANI refs are interviews, as the "he said"s at each paragraph show and not independent. Edexlive is an advertorial, so blatantly does it gush about the product. Med Dialogues is a republication of earlier PTI story which itself is about disputes about his "inventor" claim. FirstPost does seem independent and in-depth, but the focus there is entirely on his patent dispute, not himself. Hemantha (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disclosure: I have edited this article many years ago at a time when I studied in Chennai. This person is undeniably notable. A simple Google search will give links to in depth reviews based on interviews and features by reputable channels about him his invention also company and product. The main reason for his popularity with students when I was in college and why maybe some young mission inspired young people "gush about the product" is because of the social impact purpose of the work. If you are not moved by children's health then one may look at it too critically for all the things that it is not. Children are a sensitive topic you know. If one resonates with the field and the innovation to address a clear problem in children's health then there is some thing here to appreciate I feel. I am recently a parent so this digital vaccine work is very relevant for us. Hemantha can you kindly present evidence of the EdX article being an advertorial? Not all positive reviews in media should be dismissed as paid. New Indian Express is a very reliable source if you ask me. Dismissing secondary source review reference based on writing style of the journalist is not fair I feel. I do not know what happened to fooya wiki page. One can see so many references including those listed here which show notability from reliable secondary sources for that product. fooya App has been featured on national TV channels like CNBC TV18 There are multiple reviews of the product that he created and designed. Digital vaccine concept itself is too good and it has many reliable secondary sources reviewing it like Brown University center for digital health Looks like some one has made mistake with deletion request in too much haste or maybe is this because of the huge anti vaxx pro vaxx sentiment I dont know. Kannukutty1989 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to support my claim of Edexlive article being advertorial TNIE being a reliable (somewhat) source doesn't make whatever their parent puts out, reliable. Text like Wait, what? Bhargav Sri Prakash falls in the third category. Yes, he is probably the only one in that category., This app is going to be launched in schools here in India much to the joy of Indian parents who are going to bid adieu to all their parenting worries, at least with regards to food habits of course! isn't journalistic or WP:INDEPENDENT. For an instance of Edexlive promoting a fraud, see the one on "Drone Pratap" Hemantha (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with you that not all that one reads these days in media is high quality journalism or WP:INDEPENDENT. But I am not in agreement of your use of the EdexLive article from waybackmachine to illustrate point about dismissing secondary source review from TNIE. I have not yet seen any thing online about Bhargav Sir Prakash even remotely like the one you shared about "Drone Pratap". Have you? If so please share. Today would you dismiss positive reviews about any one in Forbes, NYT, WSJ, Time magazine because of what they carried historically (which were obviously paid/PR induced-influenced promotional articles) about Elizabeth Holmes? Chances are that most people will still trust anything they see on Forbes/WSJ/NYT but bash TNIE which goes to another conversation about double standard and inequity. I think as editors we can only form and express opinion based on face value and based on what is available in front of us. Unless of course there is clear evidence to the contrary of paid journalism. Tone or english quality of journalism is not a valid reason to question WP:INDEPENDENT I feel. However as humans there is no doubt that we all seek to confirm bias. Kannukutty1989 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't keep repeating that Edexlive is TNIE. It is not; it's a separate publication. It is in no way comparable to NYT, WSJ etc all of which would carry a correction or an apology instead of silently deleting their mis-reports. Moreover this is not the place to argue about Edexlive. Your efforts would be better spent in showing WP:THREE independent, reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth. Hemantha (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Hemantha that there is so much WP:REFBOMBing going on in this article that we need to implement WP:THREE. Actually, I would accept two compliant refs from the article supporters. Note that the notablility of the person, the company, and the products are three separate things. This article is a bio and needs RS that are in-depth and about him to establish notability. That does not include interviews, company announcements, or passing mentions. SpinningSpark 10:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[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 01:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lusaka Voice[edit]

Lusaka Voice (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)

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

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

  • Delete Sources in the article and in searches show a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources that are significant are not reliable or not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[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. No evidence of release, or other notability. If someone wants this to work on in draft space, just let me know. Star Mississippi 01:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmdAsjad: The production house has finally announced the release date of this (Ayngaran) film and it will be released on May 5 2022.
Evidence: https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/gv-prakashs-ayngaran-to-finally-hit-the-screens/articleshow/91204024.cms Kannan.529 (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayngaran (film)[edit]

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


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Ab207
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The New Indian Express No Interview with the director Yes Yes ✘ No
The Hindu No Movie announcement Yes ? 1 para ✘ No
The Times of India Yes ~ WP:TOI ? Speculation of OTT release ? Unknown
Behindwoods No Press release No Entertainment website with no indication of any editorial oversight No Passing mention ✘ No
Indiaglitz No Press release No Entertainment website with no indication of any editorial oversight Yes ✘ No
Indiaglitz No Press release No Same as above Yes ✘ No
Behindwoods Yes No Same as above ? Unconfirmed speculation ✘ No
IANS feed No Statement from the film's unit Yes ? Short article ✘ No
Behindwoods No Statement from the director No Same as above Yes ✘ No
Lyricsmall ? No Database site No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
As shown above, the film's production itself fails to meet the notability guidelines, thus falling short of WP:NFF. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed new sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Draftify Very confusing. The article says that it was "cancelled" but also says it was released through digital distribution which would not be cancelled. One source states it was going to be moved, like many other films across the world were, because of Covid lockdowns but there seems to be no indication that this did, in fact, happen. Appears to have gotten put into limbo because of Covid and never made it out. Draftify instead of delete because there is at least a possibility that it will some day get released. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, the digital release did not go as planned, hence the film remains unrelased. Would not object draftifying if any user wants to maintain the page until it meets WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:NFF - nothing to explain why failure was significant Ravensfire (talk) 18:15, 17 February 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 Red Rocket (film). Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brittney Rodriguez[edit]

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

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

  • Oppose - Subject has received significant coverage in New York Times and two regional papers) as a first time actor plucked off the street who received film festival recognition and awards during the film's release. Also received notability as a mural artist. This qualifies as unique and innovative per WP:NACTOR. Kire1975 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Comparable to Besedka Johnson. Kire1975 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I know you created the article, so please don't take it personally. I evaluated your arguments but unfortunately I don't see any strong arguments for canceling this AfD: coverage in multiple notable RSS is irrelevant; first time actor plucked off the street if anything the claim "the director uses first-time talent" can be sourced, but that does not justify this article; notability as a mural artist no source establish her notability as an artist independently of her film role; Comparable to Besedka Johnson No it isn't. Please understand you have done nothing wrong by creating the article - many people including myself have seen articles get deleted because of precisely NACTOR's two role requirement. CapnZapp (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is Besedka Johnson notable outside her one film role? Kire1975 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to encourage you to bring up that question at its article's talk page. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must have assumed you had a reason for saying "no it isn't". Kire1975 (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Red Rocket (film). The notability guidelines for actresses require multiple roles in significant productions. Since whatever reliable coverage we have is almost all connected with this one film, a redirect seems the most logical choise at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure we should circumvent the criteria for article creation that way. As I understand it, the intent of NACTOR is for any link to the actor to remain red until the two-credit criteria is fulfilled. See for instance Raegan Revord (link is red), an actress that is much closer to fulfilling NACTOR than the subject of the article discussed here. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple of pieces of local/regional coverage, but the rest of the sources only mention her in passing in connection to the film. Does not meet WP:NACTOR at this time, and not enough content on which to base a WP:BLP. --Kinu t/c 19:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Reply - The New York Times story is more than passing. Local/regional does not make RSS not RSS. Kire1975 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read up on what we are discussing here. The reliability of sources is not relevant. CapnZapp (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a "not enough content" section on the WP:BLP policy page? The reason I created this is I noticed that athletes get stub pages all the time. According to his own count, User:Lugnuts has created over 93,000 of them. Ioan Wetzer, for example, played five friendly matches for Romania in 1942 and nobody's trying to delete that page. Kire1975 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, just because other stuff exists is not a good reason to justify it here. That said, you are comparing apples to oranges here. Please examine WP:NACTOR and WP:SPORTSPERSON and take special note of the differences. (I haven't even visited Wetzer's page and I am not suggesting his article is appropriate. Nor am I suggesting it is inappropriate). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Red Rocket (film), as an WP:ATD. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 13:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Re: WP:GNG: the subject has received more than a trivial mention in the New York Times and two regional reliable, secondary, independent sources independent of the subject. 13:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Please read up on what we are discussing here. The number of newspaper mentions is irrelevant. Rodriguez is presented as an actor and an artist. There are no grounds for general notability. As for acting, she fails NACTOR. As for an artist I see zero notability. CapnZapp (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply From WP:GNG that you linked to first: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This is not about "number of newspaper mentions." Kire1975 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and understand the very next section (WP:SNG) before making irrelevant commentary. That is, ask yourself: for what accomplishments are you arguing Rodriguez is notable? If "as an actress", then WP:NACTOR applies. If "as a mural artist", then sorry, but a mere mention in passing in articles focused on the movie does not a notable mural artist make. Where is the coverage of her work and recognition thereof? If not an actor and not an artist, then what? The article offers no further suggestions. Which is why the article has ended up here. Let's be honest, the sole reason the article was created was her role in Red Rocket. It is clear to me she deserves an article if and when she gains a second notable role, not before. CapnZapp (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Red Rocket. I don't see scrubbing this page's history as a good option here, especially if she has other acting roles in the future. KidAd • SPEAK 21:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[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. Sandstein 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RhyDizel[edit]

RhyDizel (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)

Subtle WP:ADMASQ on a non-notable artist and businessperson. His work as a graphic artist in the music industry doesn't make him automatically notable and the sources used are all paid-for placements. For example, Voyage LA allows user submission as does Shoutout LA so those two interviews have no value in this discussion. I also found this interview in The Hype Magazine but this is also user-submitted spam. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 15 February 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! 22:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Ripley[edit]

Heather Ripley (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 dispute between a new account who claims to be a relative of this former actress and other editors of the article was brought to WP:ANI here, where the point was made that there are questions about the notability of the subject, insofar as her appearance in the film Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was about the only thing of note to have occurred for her (making it WP:BLP1E). Everything since then, whilst sourced, is just the ordinary type of things that people do in adult life. Community input on to whether Ms Ripley needs an article here rather than a paragraph in the film's article is sought. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article’s creator. The subject is internationally famous, admittedly as a child actor. Readers of the article want to know what has happened to her since the film. Certainly, her subsequent life has been more interesting than that of her co-star Adrian Hall (actor), whose stub article has not been nominated for deletion. However, I am not opposed to a bit of pruning if other editors think some of the information is too personal. For myself, everything quoted is backed by reliable sources and are Ripley’s own words. Jack1956 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to me to meet our notability criteria and to be properly sourced and cited. Tim riley talk 19:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Tim Riley. SoyokoAnis - talk 21:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fails WP:NACTOR but passes WP:GNG. Several in-depth articles specifically about her is enough (including The Guardian 24 Feb 2002 and The Times 2 Jan 2005), and there's more coverage above that.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily passes WP:GNG while her extensive coverage in such broadsheets as The Guardian, The Times and the BBC website among others shows she remains notable. Dreamspy (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is adequate coverage of this subject, as many reporters and others are interested in the former child actor's later life. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After removal of apparent original research and tabloid-style coverage, this appears to be WP:BLP1E and a WP:GNG fail for a low-profile individual who has primarily received non-independent interview-based coverage since her one film role. Beccaynr (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see plenty of non-interview sources in the article. There is a difference between an interview and a profile. Mlb96 (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has reliable sources and appears notable. Timetraveller80 (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would agree with the arguments above, especially as the subject has attracted a reasonable level coverage in the media over the years. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is enough substantial coverage to show lasting notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slavomir Miletić[edit]

Slavomir Miletić (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 indications of any particular notability for this artist. This article was created in 2010 and has existed, essentially unchanged, with no citations other than the artist's own website (an insubstantial thing in itself). Google searches provide no information outside from some brief descriptions of one of his works on display in the Netherlands. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ De kinderen van SLAVOMIR MILETIC. "Algemeen Handelsblad". Amsterdam, 08-09-1962. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=KBNRC01:000035788:mpeg21:p022
  2. ^ Beeldhouwer-arbeider kreeg opdracht van zijn fabrieksdirectie. "Het Parool". Amsterdam, 22-11-1962. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ABCDDD:010841565:mpeg21:p005
  3. ^ Directie merkt: er werkt een beeldhouwer op de expeditie En geeft Miletic de opdracht van zijn leven. "Trouw". Meppel, 29-11-1962. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ABCDDD:010815971:mpeg21:p011
  4. ^ Moet u horen!. "Het vrije volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad". Rotterdam, 29-11-1962, p. 23. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010954006:mpeg21:p023
  5. ^ Zaandam weigert beeld voor het voltooid is. "Het vrije volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad". Rotterdam, 29-05-1963, p. 15. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010954154:mpeg21:p015
  6. ^ ZAANDAM WEIGERDE BEELD Gipsen model van Miletic viel in stukken. "Algemeen Handelsblad". Amsterdam, 18-06-1963. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=KBNRC01:000033307:mpeg21:p002
  7. ^ SLAVOMIR MILETEC, de wanhopige: „ Wat is mooi? Mijn hele hart ligt in mijn houtwerker!” Bevolking van Zaandam laat Joegoslavische beeldhouwende boer niet inde steek. "Nieuwe Haarlemsche courant". Haarlem, 21-06-1963, p. 7. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMNHA03:179288066:mpeg21:p00007
  8. ^ IK BEN EEN KIND VAN DE WOLVEN. "Algemeen Dagblad". Rotterdam, 04-10-1963. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=KBPERS01:002819028:mpeg21:p00007
  9. ^ ZAANDAM VERNIELT BEELD. "Algemeen Dagblad". Rotterdam, 14-04-1964. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=KBPERS01:002822038:mpeg21:p00007
  10. ^ Miletic gearresteerd bij beeldenstorm op Binnenhof. "Tubantia". Enschede, 06-01-1971. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=KBPERS01:003330004:mpeg21:p00008
  11. ^ De Twee De rode draad in het leven van Miletic door AAN LINDO. "Het Parool". Amsterdam, 12-01-1991. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ABCDDD:010833195:mpeg21:p002
  12. ^ VERBANNEN KUNSTWERK 'DE HOUTWERKER' NA DERTIG JAAR MOGELIJK TERUG WAAR HET HOORT ZAANSE BEELDENSTORM woedt weer in alle hevigheid. "De Telegraaf". Amsterdam, 22-10-1994, p. 25. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010692049:mpeg21:p025
  • Withdrawn I was not able to find any of these sources. (Perhaps my G-search was limiting to English sources, although I generally do not do that.) Thanks to all who found these sources and expanded the article! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:54, 20 February 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! 22:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Houston[edit]

Marcus Houston (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 subject played seven college football games for Colorado State. Notability seems to be lacking, Don't think this subject passes GNG based on sources. He was highly touted out of High School it seems, and does have a little bit of coverage from The Denver Post, but I don't think that alone would constitute passing GNG. Spf121188 (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: Spf121188, with this diff, tried to close as withdrawn. While they can certainly express their own change of view, WP:WDAFD does not permit withdraw/close once, as here, another editor has supported the deletion rationale. Cbl62 (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Cbl62 Spf121188 (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. Your intention to withdraw shows that you are able to keep an open mind about your own nomination -- something that pride sometimes prevents us from doing. The closer should take into consideration your change of view, and you are free to expound on that is you wish. Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer; As the nominator, after users brought reliable sources to light, I do believe notability is established and the article can continue to be improved with said sources. Just making an official note of it. SPF121188 (tell me!) (contribs) 19:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we really need more sustained and long lasting coverage to justify an article. Topics need to be coverage with longevity. Basically a top out of high school recruit being touted is just never in and of itself enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:IMPACT. In a couple of quick searches I found SIGCOV here and here and here. He is ranked as a top 100 recruit of all time on 247Sports, one of the industry standards, and I expect that there was significant coverage of his recruitment, given that he was the highest-ranked running back in his class and the 5th highest overall in his recruiting class. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or draftify Houston appears to be notable, but the article needs an incredible amount of work. Sports Illustrated ran an in-depth piece on him in 2000 and the New York Times had a story on him as a senior after transferring in 2003. The Denver Post has headlines featuring his name as recently as 2019 so it appears that coverage has been sustained beyond his initial recruitment. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- GPL93, I would support this as an alternative, because the article is in terrible shape, borderline TNT worthy. There does seem to be notability here, but it appears none of this has really been demonstrated effectively in the article. Is this something you think you could work on a bit? If so I'll withdraw this one. Etzedek24 helped me with access to Newspapers.com, so I'll do better with performing thorough BEFORE searches. Spf121188 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spf121188: If I have time I will try, although it will essentially require replacing all existing content so I don't hate just WP:TNTing the whole thing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spf121188: Still needs work, particularly surrounding his high school career/recruitment and his issues with the coaching staff and the CU program, but I just finished rewriting a basic and more clear entry. Also, I'm not sure if a withdraw is permitted given the previous delete vote. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think Houston qualifies as an exception to the "NFL game time or bust" rule of usual given his status as a HS recruit. He wasn't exactly Maurice Clarrett in terms of media profile, but somewhere between Marcus Dupree and Darrell Scott. Also, I don't agree with removing the USA Today All-USA team honor. --bender235 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Bender235, refer to this discussion when it comes to USA Today HS AA teams. This isn't the place to discuss it, but I wanted to just bring that to your attention. Hey man im josh is the one who took it out of the infobox, but that discussion is why. Spf121188 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bender235: There is no "NFL game time or bust" rule, as NGRIDIRON is an inclusive rather than exclusive rule. College athletes who never turn pro are and always have been eligible for inclusion if they pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per above cited sources. Players can still be notable without playing a game in the NFL. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG with SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources including Sports Illustrated (here). Whether rightly or wrongly, GNG is coverage-based, rather than performance-based. Houston didn't quite live up to the high expectations (636 rushing yards in his best season), but he got a slew of SIGCOV and thus clearly passes GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I agree this article passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 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. Sandstein 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War Brokers[edit]

War Brokers (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)

Provided references do not prove notability. No sign of reliable sources after a quick search, only a few listicles. Remagoxer (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Remagoxer (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Game has zero reviews on Metacritic, which generally indicates that reliable secondary sourcing even within the video game press space aren't taking note. For that matter, there is only a single user review. WP:VG/S reliable source search produces zero results. The only two secondary sources in use are listicles without real in-depth coverage. While PC Gamer is reliable, I'm not sure about MakeUseOf, but these are still just short blurbs in a listicle. -- ferret (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also did an extensive search but found no more sources than what's mentioned in the article. Timur9008 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of independent and reliable references. Sources of article are not solid enough to demonstrate notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't have anything new to say. Sultan the Sultan (talk) 07:33, 20 February 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! 22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Bell[edit]

Jill Bell (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)

Seems like an industry professional but has no secondary sources to substantiate notability so I don't think this passes WP:GNG. I am also not familiar with typography so I can't determine WP:CREATIVE. BriefEdits (talk) 17:17, 15 February 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid deletion rationale has not been advanced. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 16:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amara Sullia Rebellion[edit]

Amara Sullia Rebellion (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 completely mesh Chidananda Kampa (talk) 16:38, 15 February 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. Sandstein 21:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Architect Institute[edit]

The Global Architect Institute (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:ORG Assyrtiko (talk) 11:23, 15 February 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! 22:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Range[edit]

Sunset Range (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 is sourced only to IMDB, which is ultra comprehensive and not reliable. Well, it also has a note as to how to download the film from another site, but that is still not providing any secondary coverage. Articles are to be built on secondary source in depth coverage of the topic in sources that are reliable, indepdent of the subject, and the multiple sources need to be intelectually indepedent of each other. We have nothing even remotely like that her, and my search for sources at both google and google books turned up absolutely nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, small review at TV Guide [5]. Not enough on its own, but a possible start? DonaldD23 talk to me 16:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also found this in the book Western Movies: A Guide to 5,105 Feature Films, [6] DonaldD23 talk to me 16:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film features significant involvement by several notable persons that have their own articles, and the article has 14 incoming links. Hoot Gibson was a leading performer in Hollywood at the time ("second only to cowboy film legend Tom Mix as a box office draw"). The article about character actor Eddie Lee lists his role in this film as one of his few significant roles. The articles John Elliott (actor) and Kitty McHugh have images from Sunset Range in their respective infobox, and the captions link to the article. In depth coverage is built over time, but even short articles can contribute to increased knowledge. The lack of online sources can likely be attributed to it being an old film, and a look in newspapers from the time is likely to show something. Feel free to tag it with {{sources}} instead of deleting it. It is easier to build on an existing article than to start all over. --Bensin (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We keep articles based on identified sources, the issue is not whether they are online or not. The one short review in the TV Guide and the brief mention mentioned above are not enough to justify keeping the article. Notability is not inhereited, so it does not matter how notable those involved in the production were, if we do not have indepth sources about it there is no notability. Still shots from a film are not secondary sources, and their use elsewhere on Wikipedia in no way adds toward notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnpacklambert: I have expanded this article a fair bit now with historic sources that are verifiable. These are period coverage so would you consider they sufficiently compliment more contemporary coverage? Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*weak delete i feel that deleting the article isnt the best choice, but it is a stub with few refrences, if someone adds more, ill vote keep, or if a sort of western movies page is made ill vote merge, and delete on this might be bad. so unless its improved or merged, delete -just a quick reminder,Im really bad at this(talk)- 17:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Im really bad at this: I have expanded the article with newspaper sources and created a few sections. Is it enough for you to reconsider your !vote? Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep my issues with the article have been resolved, and it seems to be better now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im really bad at this (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the sources above that I listed, it is also found in several editions of the book "Video Hound's Golden Movie Retriever" [7]. I feel that while these items might not pass WP:NFILM requirements, I do think they pass WP:GNG as there is coverage. A search of newspapers from that time might yield more, but I don't have access to those. But, GNG seems to be established. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I love those Videohound books, they're typically not seen as notability giving as they're more of a database type guide. They tend to pride themselves on having just about every film they can squeeze into one large sized book, which is part of the reason I love those guides. They're not the best source to base notability on, essentially. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: You're right about coverage from historic newspapers - definitely coverage of this. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is actually a reasonable amount of coverage on newspapers.com and I have taken the liberty of cropping a handful of these and creating a reception section from them. This isn't exhaustive and it seems it got press coverage in newspapers of that period. Although it's unlikely there will be much in the way of substantial full-page reviews of this film, there is definitely more than just passing mentions and no doubt more can be found still. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as newspaper coverage is enough to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Slavs[edit]

Muslim Slavs (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 same as Eastern Orthodox Slavs and Orthodox Slavs, nothing more than a loose collection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to imply an inherent connection between speakers of Slavic languages who just so happen to be Muslims. Thesmp (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - per nom rational - it's also highly prejudicial.--౪ Santa ౪99° 07:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed that it's a general categorization just like the other two previously deleted. It doesn't even seem to be actually supported by the source phrasing as far as I could glean - the first three sources don't actually emphasize religion + Slavs, but religion + geolocation. Whatever is useful from the article text can be used to expand the Slavs#Religion section. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Would much rather a complete rework based on religion and geographical region but I think that that is too large a task. Perhaps extract useful information into Slavs#Religion.Gusfriend (talk) 22:18, 17 February 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 Hajipur–Muzaffarpur–Samastipur–Barauni section. ✗plicit 01:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barauni–Samastipur–Muzaffarpur–Hajipur line[edit]

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

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

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

  • Redirect per above, appears to be a duplicate. NemesisAT (talk) 09:29, 19 February 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 (nomination withdrawn). I am closing this nomination which I started. My objections have been addressed, and no other delete/merge vote remains. Thank you to all who participated. (non-admin closure) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stormbringer[edit]

Stormbringer (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)

Fictional sword. I've prodded this with "No evidence this fictional object passes GNG/NFICTION." a while back, and User:Toughpigs deprodded it with WP:NEXIST: "Michael Moorcock: Fiction, Fantasy and the World's Pain", "The 1960s: A Decade of Modern British Fiction". Unfortunately, a year+ later, the article still has next to zero when it comes to proving reception/significance of this object. Aside from one sentence in the lead, it's pure plot summary plus a mostly unreferenced and ORish "In popular culture" section. Sadly, I can't access the first book outside snippet view, even with Z-library. The snippets from Michael Moorcock: Fiction, Fantasy and the World's Pain. don't suggest anything that goes beyond a plot summary (and there are many false hits, as in, the discussion of Stormbringer (novel), for example). The 1960s: A Decade of Modern British Fiction does have two sentences of analysis, but that's it, two sentences: By the time he came to the Elric stories with their central image of the semi-autonomous sword 'Stormbringer' Moorcock was able to invest this object, intrinsic to the plot and indigenous to the world represented in the text, with the necessary symbolic currency. It was meant to represent his frequently repeated theme 'how mankind's wish-fantasies can bring about the destruction of... part of mankind'". I am afraid that's just not enough to warrant keeping a stand-alone page for this niche fictional object. I suggest redirecting this to the titular novel, and the referenced single sentence of analysis that exists in the current article can be merged as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Nuisance AfD Artw (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Elric of Melniboné - I am seeing no real reason for this to be split into a separate article from the main article on the character and series. The sources that discuss the sword are all doing so in a manner that discuss it as an element/aspect of the character of Elric and the overall themes of the books, rather than as a distinct entity with independent notability. When you remove the largely WP:ORish fluff that makes up the second half of the article, what is left should really be covered on the main article on the series and character as part of the overall discussion of the themes and influences. Rorshacma (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have stricken my above recommendation for Merging per the discussion and sources below. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you substitute the Eternal Champion for Elric, your statements would be more correct... But still insufficiently so. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason I specifically suggested the article on the Elric series as the target, rather than the overall Eternal Champion, is that this article is very specifically on the Stormbringer incarnation of the "Black Sword". I'm not an expert on the series, but its my understanding that the specific "Stormbringer" incarnation of the Black Sword is something that is largely tied to Elric, and the other versions of the Eternal Champion all have their own Black Sword equivalent, but are still their own distinct incarnation of the weapon. If you are suggesting that this article could be renamed and revamped to cover the concept of the Black Sword as a whole, I can see the potential. But, if it is going to remain focused specifically on Elric's Stormbringer, it would be better covered on that main article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That seems like more of an argument for article expansion than a merge argument, TBH. Artw (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Its more that I think that the sourced information that is currently in this article that is specifically on the Stormbringer as wielded by Elric should be included on the main Elric of Melniboné page rather than split out as its own article, hence the Merge argument. But that doesn't preclude there also being an article on the Black Sword as an overall concept. Rorshacma (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's certainly a reasonable take on things... but which of us have the time to do that? Thus, it becomes a question of cleanup, merge, delete, or kick the can down the road, rather than any real meaningful improvement to move the encyclopedia forward. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I wonder if the Elric of Melniboné page needs a rewrite from 'a fictional character' to the 'series', like we did recently with Heechee (a fictional race) that following a recent AfD got rewritten into a much more encyclopedic and notable concept of the Heechee Saga. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have no person or team keeping up Michael Moorcock's corpus. It's a mostly unusable shambles, and I neither have the time nor the dead tree sources to revise it, but it should be done, because the whole of the category deserves better than what it has here. The fact that you would even think about nominating Stormbringer for deletion speaks to how substandard our coverage is. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rorshacma In light of Stormbringer#Analysis, do you still think merge is best? I am considering withdrawing this nom if you concur. Interested editors may want to comment at Talk:Elric_of_Melniboné#Should_this_be_rewritten_into_an_article_about_the_"Eric_series"?. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nominator admits this nomination is based on the current state of the article, and hence fixable by regular editing. Stormbringer has been imitated in so many other media, this article is an "in popular culture" magnet. Having said that, a full scholar search is going to find plenty, but I don't have time to undertake one at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found a few that y'all can chew through. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And are they talking about the Sword, outside of a plot summary, or the book with the same name? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The book of the same name is one of eight-ish books in which Elric and Stormbringer have an 'it's complicated' relationship. I'm perfectly capable of bringing you things that aren't trivial or only about the book or the specific sword; have a bit more AGF. The title of the first paper I linked is "A Brief History of EPVIDS: Subjectivity and Evil Possessed Vampire Demon Swords" which should be a big clue that it's not talking about just any specific sword or plot, but about an entire class of fictional object of which Stormbringer is the most recognizable and popularly successful modern incarnation. Oh, here's one that talks about Stormbringer without mentioning it by name, too: [8] Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This all seems like a pretty convincing argument for a merge like Rorshacma suggested, although the target article needs to be rewritten into one about the series, with a reasonable plot summary which can discuss the relation between Elric and his sword. And in the reception we can have the two-three sentences of analysis we dug up, on the sword, since we haven't yet looked for coverage of Elric. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Um, no, the entire of EPVIDS may include Stormbringer as an archetype, but expands far beyond that. A merger to Elric does not make sense even within the Moorcock corpus, because other characters used/wielded it in various forms, but trying to create a new article on the concept of EPVIDS including Stormbringer might. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I doubt EPVIDS are notable, although if the term is used by more than one author, a section in magic sword would be good. My quick check suggests that the term has been used by just two authors (as far as scholarly sources go) so it is very much not notable IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sources review:
      • The first source (accessed through WP:LIBRARY) arguably is a WP:SIGCOV treatment of this. It does call the Stombringer the most influential of modern "Evil Possessed Vampire Demon Swords". However, most other mentions are in the plot context, or focus on Sword's relationship to Eric (which supports the idea of a merge). The most analytical, non-plot quote I found that is about the sword and not its wielder (Eric) is this: "Still, a weapon like Stormbringer reinforces liberal selfhood in a particularly concrete way. It carries a continuous external threat to personal autonomy, and it subverts a fully rational self-determination. Modern fantasy heroes, especially in epic fantasy, often rail against "destiny" or a prophecy, but such destinies and prophecies lack Stormbringer's sentient specificity."
      • The second source (also accessed through WP:LIBRARY) is not relevant, it only states that "Small narratives of such mo- ments occur throughout Michael Moorcock's dark Elric series; the protagonist's black sword, Stormbringer, drinks its victims' souls as they watch. It is telltale that the sword finally turns out to be a disguised version of Satan." and I am not sure if the second sentence relates to Stomrbinger or some other work discussed earlier in the text.
        The final words of the series are spoken by Stormbringer, after it had turned on Elric, drank his soul, and transformed into a humanoid shape in which to corrupt the newly re-created world, "Farewell, friend. I was a thousand times more evil than thou." (which is from Memory, because Wikiquote, inexplicably, does not reproduce it) Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jclemens Damn, we need spoiler tags after all :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was able to access source three (simple CEEOL login worked). It mentions the topic once, I'd say in passing: "Tyrfingr’s influence on the folkloric trope of cursed magic swords possessing self-determination may be recognised in such medievalist fantasy re-imaginings as Stormbringer in Michael Moorcock’s Elric of Melniboné — the black sword sustaining its sickly owner at the cost of perpetually feeding it lives."
      • source four sadly is unavailable to me. If anyone figures out how to access, do let me know
      • source five is a blog, unreliable
      Anyway, I remain increasingly convinced that the topic has no stand-alone notability, but a merge to Elric of Melniboné is a sound idea. PS. Someone should consider adding some of this to magic sword... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Piotrus: About source four, I see the whole publication simply on the page of the link. It has one paragraph where it features Strombringer as a magic item with its own intent, closing with the evaluation "these unique magical items are like technologies unleashed on the world that are agents in their own right." If it should not display for you, please ping me again and I'll copy/paraphrase more. Daranios (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If you could, please do. Trying to access full text directs me to a log in page and I don't have the right credentials. I assume your institution has the subscription to this database - lucky :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Piotrus: The paragraph says that Strombringer is a special type of magical item, also known from D&D, in that it has a will, goals (like devouring souls), personality and an alignment. Often "pulling Elric along", and is in struggle with him. And then the quoted comparison with technology. Daranios (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, if you can add something to the article based on it, go ahead. Since I cannot see the content I have to trust you on this one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Piotrus: Didn't really plan on investing more time here, but well, I've added what I've seen in that source. Daranios (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      One more on White Plume Mountain and Blackrazor, from the module's author: [9]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think in total with the sources present in the article and those already found there exists enough coverage to establish the notability of the topic. AfD is not clean-up, and the current state of the article is not the important point for a deletion decision. Daranios (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Highly notable and easily enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am highly skeptical of the notability claims of fictional swords, but the new sourcing provided in this AfD strikes me as persuasive. In particular, "A Brief History of EPVIDS: Subjectivity and Evil Possessed Vampire Demon Swords" is centrally organized around assessing the meaning of this particular fictional sword as a fictional sword (i.e., its real-world importance, not its in-narrative importance), explicitly stating a long-lasting influence that is also detectable in some of the imitations/adaptations mentioned in the "in pop culture" section of the article. It really does seem that this is a paradigmatic fictional sword which influenced its genre. The article would be much improved if the "description" section was substantially reduced, and half of the "in popular culture" section was converted to an "imitations and influence" section (e.g., the Game of Thrones example is a trivial pop culture reference, but the D&D Blackrazor is much more than that). Those improvements can be handled through normal editing and are not cause for deletion. The article is overall solid enough that WP:TNT does not apply. Because the importance of the sword lies in its impact on fantasy as a genre, I oppose a merge to the character Elric, and would consider the book series a more appropriate merge target if the final consensus is for a merge. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Convincing argumentation to keep in the discussion above. /Julle (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. The article has been improved to the point I no longer feel the need to consider deletion/merger. No other delete/merge vote remain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 20 February 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 Speedy delete under WP:G11 by admin Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Govardhan Dravyam App[edit]

Govardhan Dravyam App (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 topic sourced only to Google Play and Instagram; previously rejected then moved to mainspace; returned to draft with some advice left for creator at their TP; However, then returned to main with little if any improvement. Eagleash (talk) 12:40, 15 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep gurme[edit]

Sandeep gurme (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)

References in English mainly only have passing mentions of the person in question. Seems to fail WP:BIO Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 12:38, 15 February 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. No sourcing found, nothing to merge. No objection to a redirect being created and happy to provide attribution history if the info is subsequently sourced. Star Mississippi 01:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 1938 Bolivarian Games – Men's team squads[edit]

Football at the 1938 Bolivarian Games – Men's team squads (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'm not convinced that this tournament was of a high enough profile that a list of squads is absolutely essential. This article has been unsourced for its entire history so is also a WP:V concern let alone WP:N. A full list of results is found here but the squads aren't listed. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:13, 15 February 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.. There was strong near consensus to delete but I'm moving this page to Draft space for those who believe that better sources are imminent. Please do not move to main space until it has received AFC approval. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paras Kalnawat[edit]

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

Only one significant role and some small roles , failing WP:NACTOR Princepratap1234 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though the notable role is only one that is Samar Shah in Anupamaa but still it'll be very soon to get his article deleted due to illogical fan activities by some sockpuppet users.Though ITV shows features dozens of actors. But he's one of the important character since starting of the show. And the main lead of 2017 series Meri Durga and main antagonist of 2019 web series Ishq Aaj Kal. Though his main notable role is Samar Shah right now. But see his career graph for once. Not asking as a fan. Generally. See the plot of Anupamaa first and his career graph also. Please.Pri2000 (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete requires multiple lead roles. There are many roles but they aren't essentially lead. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, it's not clear that this meets WP:NACTOR one major role, some minor roles, with no RS supporting. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject has wide media coverage in reliable sources like The Times of India, Zee news, prabhat khabar, Indian express etc. So it should be kept. Gari897 (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Wide media coverage" has been asserted; is that claim backed up by reliable sources? @Gari897: links to the sources you are referencing would help move this discussion along properly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of these sources do seem relevant; relisting again in the hope of getting reactions from other participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've looked through the links found above and all are either typical churnalism (republished tweet/instagram posts) content or interviews. hemantha (brief) 10:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think deleting an article even after having sufficient presence in Reliable Resources just on the basis of Interviews or Churnalism will be a much sooner step. As most of the actors have their sources on similar basisPri2000 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primary sources like interviews may be used to support article content but they don't contribute towards notability. The subject has to meet NACTOR or GNG independently. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubation Request/Suggestion - Kindly incubate the article and move it to Wikipedia:Drafts instead of deletion until it meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notable shows. Fails WP: NACTOR.223.236.209.202 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just see his career graph for once within 2021 and Anupamaa is indeed his biggest notable show even after him being main lead in Meri Durga and main antagonist in Ishq Aaj Kal. And don't consider Anupamaa unnotable as Anupamaa itself is a highly populated show following all notability guidelines. And his role is in the show is among one of the most important roles. And see his presence in Reliable sources also. I agree with Manali Jain's suggestion also to draftify it.Pri2000 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pri2000 ,you are commenting so many times to influence the result. You don't need to mention same thing again and again.110.226.215.221 (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pri2000, Please see WP:GNG and WP: NACTOR. He is clearly failing both guidelines.110.226.215.221 (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pri2000 but you are repeating your statement again and again. You have voted once and commented twice.110.226.215.221 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above IP is evading their block. The closer should disregard their comments. Girth Summit (blether) 13:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too soon. Refer-WP:TOOSOON GeezGod (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - To me this topic appears possibly notable, but the article is in such poor English that it's difficult to tell. Deb (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one last time. It was suggested that the subject is "possibly notable".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[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 Lists of astronauts. ✗plicit 13:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of space travelers[edit]

Lists of space travelers (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'm not sure how this page is necessary? Just links to other list articles. I guess it should be a redirect to Lists of astronauts instead. Tame (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lists of astronauts. Dream Focus 09:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, and I guess merge if needed, they are both disambigs. Why on Earth did this end up listed on 'list of companies-related deletions'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lists of astronauts. Unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the redirect doesn't work, because the lists are deliberately not the same. List_of_astronauts_by_name starts with the definition "This is an alphabetical list of astronauts, people selected to train for a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft" (i.e. people who were in space professionally, doing something useful), and refers readers to the current list if they want to know about others who've gone into space, for example as commercial passengers/tourists. I think this is a helpful distinction. It would be possible to maintain the distinction by turning these lists into a combined table, with extra columns to indicate whether the person was a passenger or an astronaut, but that's a truly huge amount of work, and will make the whole thing bigger, so I think it's simpler to keep two lists. But I don't really feel strongly about the passengers, because only time will tell whether we actually care whether Branson went into space or not. Elemimele (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lists of astronauts and List of astronauts by name aren't the same article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Qwaiiplayer, Abhishek0831996 good point, but renders the redirect an even worse idea, because the data for which the reader is searching won't be available at the redirect target. If you click on something that promises a list of names, you shouldn't get dumped in a list of missions, nationalities, ethnicities and billionaires. Some space travellers will not feature in any of the lists at Lists of astronauts because, for example, as space-travellers rather than astronauts, they may not belong to any of the missions, nationalities or ethnicities that we've included. Frankly, the whole lot of those lists are a mess. Why do we have a List_of_Ibero-American_spacefarers but no list of European astronauts, and why does the Ibero-American list include Klaus_von_Storch, who hasn't made it off the ground, and is realistically unlikely to do so? By all means delete, but don't bother with a misleading redirect. Elemimele (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lists of astronauts. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lists of astronauts - After a quick comparison, it seems like List of space travelers by company is the only list included here that is not already present on the Lists of astronauts page, so that should probably be added. But, outside of that, this is entirely redundant. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from creator---thanks for pointing out lists of astronauts; if I had known about this, I wouldn't have made the page. I had spent a while looking for a particular list of space travellers, and in order to spare other people the same effort, I made the list of lists; I think the reason I didn't realize lists of astronauts was what I needed is that list of cosmonauts, referring to members of the Soviet space program, showed up right before it in search, so I automatically assumed this was a list of non-Soviet astronauts (I should've checked, sorry). Anyways, redirect seems like by far the most reasonable choice. Oeoi (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. I'm striking my weak keep. I was fooled by the browser on the device I was using, which somehow skipped straight to the actual list of space travellers by name at List_of_space_travelers_by_name. Looking into it, I've seen it does this with several list-of-list type articles, possibly because of my clumsy fingers! My comments above therefore applied to completely the wrong article. But with thanks to the closer for reopening, as technically it's right that the AfD should run its course. Apologies to all for causing confusion. Elemimele (talk) 22:10, 15 February 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. Sandstein 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Asians[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Overseas Asians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

The article is not useful in its scope. There are individual articles for all Asian national diasporas. Furthermore, there are no citations or links to other articles. The article essentially contains an infobox only which is not supported by citations.StormcrowMithrandir 09:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: One malformed sentence about a misnamed topic (what happens to Asians who migrate overland to Europe or Africa?). No meaningful content at all. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:09, 15 February 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! 05:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matter (app)[edit]

Matter (app) (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 app, not enough in-depth and significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. Tame (talk) 08:00, 15 February 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! 05:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minoan Group plc[edit]

Minoan Group plc (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)

Irrelevant minor company. Uhooep (talk) 07:39, 15 February 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 13:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Iraq-related articles[edit]

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

This type of list can be considered depecrated, per this, this, this, this, this, this, this and probably this AFD. The index in question is a small and does not give useful assistance to a reader on Iraqi topics. Would have prodded, but the AFD route was tried already in 2007. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 15 February 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! 05:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Lebanon-related articles[edit]

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

This type of list can be considered depecrated, per this, this, this, this, this, this, this and probably this AFD. The index in question is small and does noe give useful assistance to a reader about Lebanese topics. Would have prodded, but the AFD route was tried already in 2007 and 2009. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 15 February 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 have noted the number of, shall we say, very new accounts arguing to keep here. Given the issues with sock puppetry, arguments from those have been discounted. With what is left over from more experienced editors, the consensus is clearly to delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Cerrito[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Delete and Salt: The vast majority of sources in the article or in searches are not useful. Those sources that are independent and reliable are generally not significant and vice-versa. The exceptions are the extremely local coverage from hometown papers. For a supposed nationally-distributed filmmaker, local coverage is simply not good enough evidence of WP:SIGCOV. The repeated sock-puppetry in this article and in this discussion justify create protection. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
!vote by, and discussion with, blocked sock --Blablubbs (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep and Comment I am a little upset about this being up for deletion again after it just passed for "keep." As a working artist and businessman your name means a lot. I am currently casting for a new movie and was just informed this morning by an actors agent after he "googled me" that my wikipedia is facing deletion. He asked me why. As embarrassing as it was when he asked me, I didn't know how to respond. What is irritating me the worst is after researching the history on the article it was JUST nominated for deletion and passed as "keep." As much as I don't know about wikipedia I started doing some research/reading and found under (Wikipedia: Renominating for Deletion) it states : If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. After checking it has literally been a matter of 5 days and a page about me has the deletion tag again and it is not right. I can read above that Tamzin seems to have the problem and upon looking at the just passed deletion discussion she forgot to mention it looks to be 5 Keep votes including Alanshohn, Eddy, Roman Spinner, Lamona and Saisykat. I see that a few were crossed out for whatever reasons but I am going off of what I am reading. You have to understand that as a working artist and individual something like a deletion tag on the first website that pops up when people "google you" is very demeaning. I am in the process of casting a film and people do research of who they are working with. To point out something else under (Wikipedia : Renominating for deletion) it also states "If you wish to renominate the page, hoping to achieve a different outcome, then slow down. You and the other participants may be overly involved with a particular perspective. Relisting immediately may come across as combative. Immediate second round participants are less likely to listen, and are more likely to dig in their heels. You may be right, but the audience won’t be receptive. The other participants very likely will be thinking that you have not been listening to them." I feel this has been handled unfairly and wished to express my concerns here on the discussion page. MarioCerrito (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — MarioCerrito (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Summerlee44 (talk · contribs). [reply]
@MarioCerrito:, there is a fundamental inaccuracy in your question. The article did not recently "pass as Keep". Geschichte closed this discussion with a status of "Keep" on Feb 10 but then reopened this same discussion after Tamzin pointed out that the discussion was impacted by invalid comments. Since you posted an identical message on Geschichte's user talk page, I'm sure you read the message immediately above yours explaining this. This may sound like nitpicking but it substantively means that your entire point about being tagged for deletion twice in a short time has no basis. Whatever effect you think this has on your professional status is something we cannot control. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a place where working artists and professionals can promote themselves. LinkedIn and Alignable and other places exist for that and do that better than we can. It exists to summarize what has been written about any topic that can demonstrate signifcant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The coverage that exists is not something that we control. On a more personal note, I have to state that I am also a working artist and professional and I have no article here nor would I ever want one. The mistake a lot of those in our situation make is in thinking that Wikipedia hosts pages on people. It does not. It writes articles on subjects. The difference is that the first presents a person as they wish to be seen and the second summarizes how others have written or talked about them. An article about oneself is not always a good thing. I hope that helps explain some things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn:, Hi! Awesome to hear your a fellow artist. So to address this some more, I obviously am not up to speed like you guys on the Wikipedia lingo and all but I simply meant that the article was kept. After reading I see that if someone has closed a deletion discussion it says at the bottom "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." That case was not followed here. There was no deletion review, just a simple reopen after it was just closed 5 days ago. And getting back to this (Wikipedia: Renominating for Deletion) it states : If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. How is this OK? Simply because the user Tamzin was not satisfied with the result? It doesn't seem right. And yes I totally understand what you're saying about personal and Wikipedia world and obviously I am not part of the Wikipedia world so I am learning that but in the meantime I am also defending the situation I do not think was handled properly. Thanks and I am not being malicious at all just simply stating the facts. Best, Mario.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioCerrito (talk • contribs) 14:24, February 15, 2022 (UTC)
@MarioCerrito:, Except you have your facts somewhat incorrect. There was no renomination so the standards about that don't apply. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE states that editors can use formal processes such as WP:DRV but you can also speak to the closer if you think there was information the closer should have taken into account but were not aware of. That is exactly what happened here and Geschichte obviously agreed that there was a concern that invalidated their close. The "No further comments" message then becomes irrelevant because by reverting their own close, Geschichte opened the floor to further comments. And it was reopened not because of one editor's dissatisfaction but because this discussion was impacted negatively by users disrupting the discussion. See WP:SOCK for more information but the relevant passage is: ...it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, ... By making multiple !votes under different identities, there has been a distortion of the consensus and the previous close is not reliable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn:, What you sent me is contesting a deleted page not a kept page. I don't want to argue I am curious as to how many pages are put into "kept status" and then immediately put back into deletion discussion a few days later. Especially since it clearly states that they should not be opened back up into deletion discussion until months later. There is also a specific process under deletion review. MarioCerrito (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioCerrito: The previous status of "keep" was reached by a single editor, Geschichte, who at that time believed the consensus justified closing in that manner. A closing editor reserves the right to reverse their own decision, as Geschichte did and therefore invite further discussion. A relist in this instance is essentially extending the length of time afforded to consider the validity of the article and whether or not it should exist. This is not a new discussion and you need to disregard what is now an erroneous "keep". I ensured the relist was handled correctly, but have no personal opinion on the matter. Eggishorn explained this all to you very eloquently above. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bungle: Understood. I was just stating my concerns on the matter.MarioCerrito (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nah it has some company for sure. Star Mississippi 01:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: ha, amazing. I think this article needs a sub section of the sock puppets eventually. Sourced of course. WexfordUK (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ignoring quotes, there is enough content between the sources to establish notability in my opinion. The article certainly shouldn't be deleted purely due to sock accounts or due to WP:OTHERSTUFF. NemesisAT (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient coverage to support that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:37, 26 February 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 13:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster School, Dubai[edit]

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

The article has been here since 2009 and has a tag dated to 2014, where the criteria for verification and better sources has still not been met. I would say 80% of the article's citations are primary sources to the schools' own website and blog? which violates WP:RSPRIMARY but the rest of the sources, mainly the ones including the the British govt's website and UNESCO are inflated. It bears little to the school itself as it's just explaining the schools' curriculum, nothing regarding the school itself. Prior to this AfD I had removed an entire unreferenced section and have seen small areas where NPOV language has not been met. The article had an instnace of growth mainly due to paid editors(staff) from the school itself editing the article to make the school look good, basically writing the article as an advert. The only other reference mentioned is from Kent Online a seemingly reliable source regarding the principal of the school, which to me does not seem to be of much significance to the article itself. Let me know your thoughts. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 06:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 06:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 06:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 06:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More than 5,000 students. Meets WP:GNG. Of course it's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, @Necrothesp: thank you for your opinion, can you elaborate more on how having 5,000 enrolled students validates GNG if no sources back up the claim. Also can you help me understand how that number itself can be relied upon, as it's from the school's website itself and has not been authenticated by a secondary source. In my opinion, I feel this article does not even satisfy the first line of the WP:GNG sub-section due to not having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thank you. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 17:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were two separate statements. First, its sourcing meets GNG. And second, I fail to see how such a large school is not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • May I know how its sourcing meets GNG if almost all of it is from their own website and has not had any additional sources of information on the page since 2009, authenticating it? The remaining sources are just general information regarding the British curriculum, which any and all schools following British patterned education can add. I would understand if the curriculum information was added after notability had been established, through the criteria. But I don't think that information has to do with notability for the school. Additional note, I'll condense the four sources from the same website regarding the curriculum as it seems inflated. The notable scenario that got some traction a while back was when the school was about to close, it did not happen and was just one incident which I don't think is enough to warrant notability. Further, I fail to see how you consider GNG to be met when all five criteria require some essence of reliable sources and this article has just one I feel and that's not even about the school, it's regarding the principal moving to Dubai, to take charge of the school as its principal. Yes, it's a large school as many schools offering British patterned education in Dubai are, but I feel there's nothing regarding the school to signify current notability. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 14:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mainly listings and related sources under its few unique hits. No independent, reliable sources. The Banner talk 13:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had looked into this when it was posted and had decided to vote delete at that point due to the lack of reliable, in-depth, independent coverage, but the nominator wrote a message on my talk page asking for my opinion about it before I could post the "vote." So if the closer wants to ignore this "vote" since it was sort of canvassed I'm fine with that. Although, like I said, I was planning on voting delete on it before the nominator messaged me and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to participate in something or have my opinion disqualified because of another user's actions that I have no control over. I don't think it was the intent of the nominator to canvass people either. Again though, the closer is free to ignore this, but I'm of the opinion that the school isn't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Adamant, I don't think your vote would be a problem at all, as I asked for an opinion and didn't ask you to maliciously vote to delete, on the discussion page. Either way, even if you did vote to keep, I would've still respected your answer as it is your opinion and it was one that you had prior to me messaging you on the talk page. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 05:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. I have edited numerous existing WP articles about schools - often significant RS coverage about their history, notable former pupils and (occasionally) notable teachers help to establish notability. This, though, has nothing to justify its retention. Paul W (talk) 10:07, 22 February 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! 19:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea (technical summit)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Amalthea (technical summit) (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)

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

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

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

  • Delete sourcing comes entirely from the event organizers, no independent coverage at all. Anton.bersh (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It isn't clear to me that the sourcing all comes from the event organizers. The references are PDFs that seem to have been downloaded to the IIT Gandhinagar system - perhaps through the library? Some of the articles, like this one state that they are from The Times of India Ahmedabad. That said, I have no idea whether local editions of the Times of India are considered RS. It's also a shame not have to have the original citation in the article (with effort, that perhaps could be done). I do think it would be a good idea to remove unreferenced info, reducing the article to only the facts that can be sourced. Lamona (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think the article you linked to provide any useful coverage. For one, it quotes the whole paragraphs from a certain lecture, so it would hardly be considered independent. Secondly, I don't see any coverage of the event in general, just one particular lecture. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I usually vote Delete on techfests but this one was actually covered by quite a number of reliable sources, including several articles in TOI and DNA. Don't get me wrong, it needs a lot of copy-editing, it is promotional and full of trivialities, most of the facts aren't sourced and the ones that are deserve better citation etc. However, notability-wise I think it has decent coverage to remain a short article and I don't think Blow it up and start over is the right solution in this case. --Muhandes (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please specify which sources you consider reliable independent and in-depth? Anton.bersh (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This and this are for sure reliable secondary sources. Together with the rest I think they provide enough coverage to establish notability for a short article. --Muhandes (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after looking over the references that have been provided I'm of the opinion that there is only extremely trivial, indirect coverage of this tech summit. Like the one from The Times Of India is literally one paragraph in an article about something else that doesn't even discuss the summit because it's about "The Speech Jammer", whatever that is. Whereas, the "DNA article" appears to be a self published promotional puff piece. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[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 01:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enemies Among Us[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 15 February 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! 06:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aligarh Public School[edit]

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

The article only contains some basic info, lacks citations and reliable sources, only contains official website of school. Fails WP:GNGPri2000 (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete: per nom. Does not meet any notability guidelines. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 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! 06:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salah Choudhury[edit]

Salah Choudhury (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)

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

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

  • Keep There is evidence of significant coverage. There does not seem to be any valid reason to delete the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per others and my initial thoughts. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:28, 15 February 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. Sandstein 09:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Stableford[edit]

Howard Stableford (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)

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

  • Comment - Nostalgia is not enough to prove notability. Per WP:GNG he needs significant coverage in reliable sources JMHamo (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A week in the life of ... Howard Stableford: Howard Stableford was talking to Alice Wyllie.The Scotsman; Edinburgh (UK) [Edinburgh (UK)]. 16 Sep 2006
    Typical Biker Name: Howard Stableford Rides: Harley-Davidson Road King Classic Interview by Olly Duke.The Daily Telegraph; London (UK) [London (UK)]. 16 Dec 2000
    a Dinner Date with Howard Stableford: Sunday Mercury; Birmingham (UK) [Birmingham (UK)]. 07 Feb 1999:
    My Hols;Travel;Interview;Howard Stableford, Hodson, Mark.Sunday Times; London (UK) [London (UK)]. 14 Apr 1996
    Howard Stableford 60 SECONDS EXTRA!: Howard Stableford presented Tomorrow's World for more than 12 years before giving it up to go and live in Colorado https://web.archive.org/web/20121005235636/http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/interviews/38-howard-stableford
    First four are available on ProQuest Piecesofuk (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piecesofuk: The Metro article is already in use, and someone has added a Stage article that may be good, but it's subscription-required and I can't see it. (I let my British Newspapers Archive sub lapse because it had been a hassle to get it, and the search was such shite I never found a single usable thing.) Those you cite above all appear to be interviews (and I can't see the 4 on Proquest, though there may be another way to get to some of them.) To establish notability, we need the Stage piece to be an article, not a brief blurb, and at least one additional extended piece about him, preferably not also from when he was first announced for Tomorrow's World. Since you have database access (and likely UK library access to newspaper archives online, unlike me), can you find us any? I also have doubts about the reliability of the BFI page for citing his birthdate; what's their sourcing policy, are we sure they haven't pulled that date from earlier versions of Wikipedia's own article or something equally unreliable? Do any of the interview articles I haven't seen mention how old he was at the time? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the Stage article, it states that he was 25 (in 1985). It mentions he presented Newsround and Beat The Teacher, and his early radio career. ProQuest is available via the Wikipedia Library https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/, the four mentioned above are the first four results of 211 when I search for "Howard Stableford". The Telegraph interview is available at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/4747872/Typical-biker-Howard-Stableford.html The Guardian reported his return in the live one-off https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/nov/03/bbc-to-reboot-tomorrows-world-for-one-off-live-special Daily Mirror states that he was one of Tomorrow's World's longest running presenters https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/tomorrows-world-returns-what-future-10350906 The Independent report that when Stabledord and Judith Hann were presenters that the show peaked with 10 million plus viewers https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tomorrow-s-world-confined-to-history-as-science-takes-a-battering-in-the-ratings-133503.html Piecesofuk (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the Stage article is more than a short paragraph, as I said, it appears to be a good source. But we require multiple reliable sources to have given him extended coverage, and interviews like the Telegraph are iffy for that, so so far it's the only one I see. I added the Mirror, and that can now be removed, since Stage refs the other shows that I couldn't find a reference for, and it's an unreliable source that we shouldn't be using in a BLP. As I say, I'm also uncertain about the reliability of BFI for his date of birth; I think we should be saying only "born in 1959 or 1960", with the Stage ref based on that statement that he was 25 in 1985. But the Mirror article is actually on the occasion of that one-off reunion broadcast of Tomorrow's World, and I really don't think that's worth mentioning as such in connection with his career, which is why I didn't use the Guardian, which says nothing about his other work. It and the Independent don't count toward notability at all, they only mention him briefly in connection with having done Tomorrow's World. To keep the article, we need at least one more article about him (that isn't just an interview about his love of biking; the Telegraph article adds Changing Places and that he married an American, but is otherwise just celebrity fluff, I'm afraid). Is there one (or more) lurking behind a paywall? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand why you're questioning the reliability of the British Film Institute reference. Is there any evidence that they're unreliable or pull their information from Wikipedia? They have his place of birth as Poynton, Cheshire which as far as I can tell was not in Wikipedia.
He was also President of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors from 1998 to 2007 https://web.archive.org/web/20130627092746/http://www.theipi.org.uk/History.aspx predecessors include Bob Symes, Rhys Lloyd, Baron Lloyd of Kilgerran, John Maitland (Conservative politician), Archibald Low and George Askwith, 1st Baron Askwith.
There's no evidence that the Daily Mirror is an unreliable source (no consensus according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) and it provides evidence that Stableford was one of Tomorrow World's longest serving presenters. Piecesofuk (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an additional reference for his date and place of birth, it can be viewed at https://archive.org/details/whoswhoontelevis0000hayw/page/234/mode/1up It was published in 1996 so predates Wikipedia Piecesofuk (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Piecesofuk. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[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! 05:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dokhyon[edit]

Dokhyon (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 PepperBeast (talk) 02:47, 15 February 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. Sandstein 09:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Educomp Solutions[edit]

Educomp Solutions (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)

Similar challenges as other related articles, which have been deleted or are at AfD. Sourcing is limited to run of the mill listings, acquisitions and nothing to meet WP:ORG. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 21:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: First of all, an article is supposed to be judged by its own content and its notability cannot be disputed if "so-called" similar articles created by the same editor have got notability issues. I understand that this article has some presentation issues and needs to worked upon in terms of rewriting and rearranging all the stuffs in an encyclopedic manner, but questioning it's notability just because other related articles have got "so-called" similar issues is utterly nonsense. I would like the nominator and others to go through this Money Control article, which clearly states that this company was the first education entrepreneurship of India, and according this Economic Times article, this company was at a point of time "India's largest technology-driven education company". Derivator2017 (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are references on the page and references on schools that use their products. I just added a link to the page on Yara International School and there are a couple of references to their use on that page.Gusfriend (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:43, 15 February 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. There is a fundamental divide here between those editors who believe GNG is met and those who believe it isn't so I'm closing this as no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Korah (band)[edit]

Sons of Korah (band) (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 is about a minor band and mostly contains links to wordpress blogs and tumblrs, and a couple of very minor archived mentions elsewhere. Primary editors seem to be closely involved with the band (or are just fans, nonetheless). Photonsoup (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG, as the band has been covered by mainstream media in non-trivial articles (the ABC article linked on the website, for example, is not a "minor archived mention" or a blog, there are other articles too if you do a Google search. The band is well known in Christian music in Australia. Perhaps the article needs a cleanup to remove some of the blogs but that's not the purpose of AFD. Deus et lex (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I'd agree with you that the ABC coverage wasn't trivial. Looking through the link it's essentially a blurb about a small radio story they did. I don't want to speak to how major they are or not, since I'm not in Australia, but almost all the edits to the page are coming from a couple of accounts which also edit ancillary pages such as those about specific albums from the band, and the standard of media coverage in there could be met by any band even slightly larger than a college band, most of whom aren't exactly notable. Photonsoup (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you even read the article? I feel sometimes that editors just make dumb arguments about articles to justify deletion and it feels like you have done that here. The article is extensive and discusses and band and the album they did. ABC doesn't publish those things regularly - this does meet significant coverage. There is enough here to keep the article and you should give people the benefit of the doubt. The self-published sources don't mean the article should be deleted, it means it should be cleaned up and AfD is not cleanup. 13:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment are any of their albums actually notable? LibStar (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They currently have seven album articles in WP, and all are dependent on blogs and minor directory sites, much like the band's article. If the band is deleted, the albums will have to go, probably via the Speedy Delete process. If the band is kept, I suggest that all the album articles be redirected to the band ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least one album was already speedy deleted for notability issues. Details here: [[23]]. Note that the album pages were made by the same person who made the band's page. Photonsoup (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. A number of sources are self published and lacking in depth. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - but you haven't addressed the fact there are non-self published sources that are more extensive. Please be a bit more reasonable here. 13:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Delete for the band. See my comment above on the albums; if the band is deleted then delete all the albums too; or if the band is kept then the albums should be redirected. We have seen this pattern occasionally with Christian musicians. This band has been around for a long time with a lot of works, and they clearly have a following within a closed network of church-sponsored associations and events in their region. But unfortunately they just haven't crossed over to mainstream coverage. Yes, they can be found online but only in their own promotional materials, minor gig announcements, or unreliable church publications and social media chatter. There's a lot of it, but it just doesn't add up to the significant and reliable coverage that is necessary for notability in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the ABC article is mainstream coverage. It's the Australian national broadcaster. I don't think editors are listening here, there is significant independent coverage. Artists do not have to be "mainstream", that's not Wikipedia policy. Deus et lex (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:SIGCOV. Not only does someone have to be mentioned in a reliable source, but whatever that source talks about has to be significant, and there has to be more than just one such source. Also, "mainstream" in my comment applies to media coverage, not the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well as the ABC radio source there is also significant coverage here in this Cross Rhythmns article which is an established Wikipedia reliable source for christian music so deletion is unnecessary in my view as WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage in Cross Rhythms and the ABC. StAnselm (talk)
  • Comment: Sources such as Cross Rhythmns and ABC keep being mentioned, but none of those sources seem to have any major coverage, as much as they were mentioned. A mere mention in an outside source isn't sufficient for notability, it really feels like a reach to call that serious coverage and I'd encourage anyone reading this discussion to follow through on the sources linked. Photonsoup (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm talking about the 1/2 hour episode of ABC Radio dedicated to the group. That's certainly significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, as an individual, would hit that standard for media. I don't think a single 30 minute story in the band's 28 year history meets WP:SIGCOV. I will reiterate that I don't necessarily know enough to know if this band is notable within Australia or the relevant music community, but I can say what's here doesn't seem sufficient for WP:SIGCOV and the fact that the primary defence against deletion is pointing at the same two articles tells me there isn't sufficient coverage. Again, I could be wrong, but if I'm wrong I'd really love to see an effort to present more significant coverage rather than just pointing at the same couple of articles and insisting it's sufficient. As is it feels like a few people really want this article to meet a notability standard that simply isn't there. Photonsoup (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Cross Rythymns source and ABC are significant coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional rs coverage here, here, and here imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Cross Rhythms and ABC are both RS and both SIGCOV, GNG is met, and after reviewing the coverage, I agree with St. Anselm, above. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG met, see: Cross Rhythms (2x, now), ABC and Sight Magazine articles.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:56, 18 February 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 01:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buck-security[edit]

Buck-security (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 software PepperBeast (talk) 02:31, 15 February 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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le Breuil-sous-Argenton[edit]

Le Breuil-sous-Argenton (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 commune no longer exists and does not seems to itself be notable. There were a number of news articles from Ouest France that seem to mention the towns name but it doesn't seem to bring notability to the town itself. TartarTorte 02:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • May pass GEOLAND, but IAR merge with Argentonnay as the existing commune which therefore has potential to grow beyond perma stub and help the reader find what they're looking for. When, why did they merge, etc? Star Mississippi 03:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Change to Keep per subsequent edits. Star Mississippi 15:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as it meets WP:V, I don't see how it does not meet WP:GEOLAND, and notability does not expire. Geschichte (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because the overall administrative unit it belongs to has changed doesn't change the fact that the main village has a long history in its own right and remains notable. I've destubbed it. I'm sure you could delve into its history in local libraries within this region. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Still exists as a delegated commune, meets WP:GEOLAND, and is not a stub anymore. Markussep Talk 15:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:DEFUNCTS, municipicalities are always notable regardless of if they still exist and anyway the settlement still exists. Defunct divisions should not generally be deleted or merged similar to Gamblesby parish being merged into Glassonby but we still keep separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very clearly passes WP:GEOLAND as an acknowledged settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND and Wikipedia:NTEMP. (It appears to be snowing in here.) casualdejekyll 17:08, 16 February 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. Unanimous keep decision. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 09:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Eilan[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, the closest thing to notability is that she was the president of European Society of Philosophy and Psychology, which I doubt is a significant enough society to meet WP:NACADEMIC #7. Xurizuri (talk) 01:35, 15 February 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_February_15

Leave a Reply