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 04:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Ready Records[edit]

Almost Ready Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Record store in Brooklyn, also apparently a label. No notability for either. Previously tagged, PRODed in 2016, nothing much has changed in notability since then. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A Google search finds no reliable sources about it, and only a few sites at all, mainly vinyl websites and social media. Definitely fails WP:GNG. JML1148 (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Accepted at AfC on the basis of the following significant coverage: [1], [2], [3] ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable, and those sources do not constitute "significant coverage", two don't pass WP:RS and the other isn't an especially notable column in Vice. Overall article is WP:SOAP. Acousmana 09:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the sources Kvng listed. Only Brooklyn Magazine is reliable and gives significant coverage to the subject: 50 Third and 3rd has disclaimers in their T&C that implies no editorial review of articles (i.e., it's blog-quality material), and the Vice story covers the founder of the label, not the label itself. —C.Fred (talk) 11:58, 20 July 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!} 21:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snoopy Presents: To Mom (and Dad), With Love[edit]

Snoopy Presents: To Mom (and Dad), With Love (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 film, does not meet WP:NF, lacking significant coverage by independent sources BOVINEBOY2008 21:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there is a first independent RS here, so we will see if someone finds a second. [4]. matt91486 (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources found: A quick search yielded more sources:
    • From Bleeding Cool: https://bleedingcool.com/tv/snoopy-presents-to-mom-and-dad-with-love-apple-tv-shares-trailer/
    • An award nomination reported by the Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/2022-humanitas-awards-abbott-elementary-pachinko-1235170802/
    • The same nomination was also reported by Animation Magazine: https://www.animationmagazine.net/events/humanitas-prize-nominates-animated-projects-with-purpose/
    • Alo, an Emmy nomination reported by Variety: https://variety.com/2022/tv/awards/awards-hq-june-27-2022-emmys-newsletter-1235304677/
• Keep based on the existence of additional sources found. Thank you Al83tito (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is enough coverage identified in this discussion to enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per additional identified sources. matt91486 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 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!} 01:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monson Mavunkal[edit]

Monson Mavunkal (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)

Brought up at BLP Noticeboards,[5] an attack page where many of the citations do not directly verify what he is accused of. Several of the sources seem to be tabloids. Further there have been no convictions to satisfy WP:BLPCRIME or WP:CRIMINAL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:BLPCRIME - allegations and chargs, but nothing about convictions, not a public figure. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 18 July 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 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-47, Chandigarh[edit]

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-47, Chandigarh (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, secondary school of no note. Has a decommissioned MIG-21 in its grounds because a former pupil became Air Chief. That sole fact does not make it any more notable than any other school in the 'List of Kendriya Vidyalayas' which I would all happily nominate for deletion, as it happens... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, which I believe has been the usual outcome in previous AfDs on schools in this network. Mccapra (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:35, 19 July 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sulyman Al Fakki Al Shazly[edit]

Muhammad Sulyman Al Fakki Al Shazly (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 finding anything to substantiate the notability of this author and journalist in a WP:BEFORE search, nor does the current sourcing meet WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR. I'm bringing it here for feedback from the community, as I'm wondering if there may be variations on his name that I'm not aware of. Netherzone (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Journalism. Netherzone (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I’ve found and added three refs in about ten minutes. I haven’t searched further but there’s enough already to convince me he’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 17 July 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) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Balagasay[edit]

Christian Balagasay (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 draftification. Fails WP:NBASKET and WP:GNG. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 20:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Philippines. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 20:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reference #1 actually is a WP:GNG coverage from an WP:RS. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not done. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage which aren't in the article and have not been presented here . The only source I could find was the one already in the article and it basically just says he was a suprise draft pick and has no more indepth coverage on him. Alvaldi (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - He is a NCAA champion, and a PBA first-round pick. But even if I added sources on that, he would still be a stub. So, if it's keep, I can add those sources, but if it's delete, hopefully this can be recreated again when he has become more relevant in the Philippine basketball scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Flo27 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify as an WP:ATD. The only GNG-approved source I could locate is the spin.ph reference in the article and cited above. GNG "generally expects," but does not explicitly require, multiple sources. That said, as an active player and former first round pick in the PBA, coverage on this person may improve in the coming months/years.Frank Anchor 13:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to keep as it does not fail WP:GNG per the text quoted from GNG above. Notable as a PBA player and former first round pick Frank Anchor 01:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG per Howard the Duck's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 23:06, 22 July 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Bandele Olayinka[edit]

Margaret Bandele Olayinka (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)

BLP stub with only one source. I’ve looked for others but all I see is wiki mirrors, databases and gossip pieces. I don’t see any in depth coverage of her or info about awards etc. so notability seems doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — per sources found.

• City, People (24 August 2020). "Veteran Actress, IYA GBONKAN, Talks About the Story of Her Life". City People Magazine. Retrieved 8 July 2022.
• Anjan Chatterjee; Eileen Cardilo, eds. (12 November 2021). Brain, Beauty, and Art: Essays Bringing Neuroaesthetics Into Focus. Oxford University Press. p. 52. ISBN 9780197513620.
• Harrow, K. W. (2013). "Nollywood and Its Masks: Fela, Osuofia in London, and Butler's Assujetissement". Trash: African Cinema from Below. Indiana University Press. pp. 237–265. JSTOR j.ctt16gzh88.15. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
• Olukomaiya, Funmilola (28 February 2020). "10 Nollywood Villains You Must Know". P.M. News. Retrieved 8 July 2022.

WP:THREE?. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 15:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Reading Beans. Also find mentions like "With top names like Wale Akorede (Okunnu) RasaqOlayiwola (Ojopagogo) Peter Ijagbemi, Iya Gbonkan, Sisi Quadri among others storming Ibadan," (https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/04/adebukola-steps-into-big-league-with-omo-iya-loje/) --Soman (talk) 12:09, 24 July 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. I have not renamed as that's a question that can be handled subsequently, but consensus is clear Star Mississippi 02:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Trutkoff Trumbauer[edit]

Lisa Trutkoff Trumbauer (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)

Have searched in vain for better sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Science fiction and fantasy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The article doesn`t cover WP:NCOPR and deserves to be removed - *Delete --Bigneeerman (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bigneeerman. NCORP is not the correct notability criteria to look at. Like @CT55555 pointed out, NCORP is for organizations and companies. The correct criteria are GNG and AUTHOR, which @Edwardx already listed above. --Kbabej (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments I don't understand the delete vote above, an author should not need to pass WP:NCORP as she is not an organisation or a company. I've improved the article, more than doubled it. That said, I could not find any significant coverage. I added some biographical information and one short book review. I guess children's books don't attract long reviews. I'm hoping others find more. It seems she has created a large body of work, non-independent review say over-200 books, but I did not find that stated in independent reliable sources. CT55555 (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sourcing just isn't there. The "Dog Days Reading" source is a one-sentence mention without a byline; the entire sentence is: "Fantasy fans who dig dragons can can enjoy the latest fun in A Practical Guide to Dragon Riding (Wizards/Mirrorstone $12.95)" That was the only hit on newspapers.com, and the rest of my searches couldn't find anything resembling sigcov. --Kbabej (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also I think delete is the unavoidable conclusion here. I searched for sources, added some in, but none are significant. I'll reverse my decision quickly if anyone can find significant sources, so please say if you do. CT55555 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Lisa Trumbauer. Seems very notable; 33,713 library holdings is a serious notability indicator. I found a detailed Cengage entry [6] which in turn lists some "independent reviews". Not sure why we want to delete as many articles as possible. 65.92.160.108 (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:NAUTHOR point 4 based on significant library holdings and some reviews given below:

• Booklist, September 1, 2003, Carolyn Phelan, review of Why We Need Child Care Workers and Why We Need Construction Workers, p. 126.

• School Library Journal, December, 1999, Kristina Aaronson, review of Click It! Computer Fun: Math, p. 129; February, 2000, Yapha Nussbaum Mason, review of Click It!: Computer Fun Halloween, p. 115; July, 2000, Yapha Nussbaum Mason, review of Cool Sites: Homework Help for Kids on the Net, p. 123; July, 2002, Eldon Younce, review of The Life Cycle of a Chicken, p. 112; June, 2003, John Peters, review of Exploring Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, p. 92. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.160.108 (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Now I see that she is better known without her middle name, easy to argue to keep. Academic reviews of her more science based children's books follows. I wonder if she uses her middle name for the dungeons and dragons themed stuff and the shorter version for the more science stuff:

1. Mesires, Maria. Science and Children, vol. 45, no. 5, 2008, pp. 68–68. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43174832. Accessed 19 Jul. 2022.
2. Reynolds, Ann. The American Biology Teacher, vol. 65, no. 8, 2003, pp. 637–637. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/4451579. Accessed 19 Jul. 2022.
3. Fredericks, Anthony. Science and Children, vol. 41, no. 1, 2003, pp. 65–65. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43172076. Accessed 19 Jul. 2022. CT55555 (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per findings by IP user 65.92.160.108 and per new input from CT55555. BOZ (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to reviews to meet WP:NAUTHOR as listed above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the arguments above. /Julle (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). czar 20:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford C. Freeman[edit]

Bradford C. Freeman (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)

Freeman was a soldier in the U.S. Army during World War II. He was assigned to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). However, he never acquired sufficient rank or received sufficient awards to qualify for WP:SOLDIER. His only claim to fame is his assignment to E Company; that falls under WP:INHERITED. Freeman happens to be reported to be the last person assigned to E Company to die. Dying does not make one famous; Freeman fails WP:NOTABILITY. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Mississippi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete the Band of Brothers (miniseries) effect here. He personally did nothing notable, but then Ambrose wrote his book, they made the miniseries and suddenly it was like Easy Company won WWII. The repeated stories that have followed mean that every minor member of Easy Company has some coverage. All the sources provided just cover his death and that he was the last surviving member of Easy Company. It can be argued that amounts to SIGCOV satisfying WP:BASIC but I can't support this position that has developed that a few news reports of some old person dying establishes notability that they never had while alive. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (Weak) Merge to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) based on how the coverage is limited to him being the last member alive. All told, this appears to be an edge case, but personally it has a certain je ne sais quoi which makes a dedicated article not feel quite proper. If I were to motivate this by policy, I guess the argument goes something along the lines of "being/dying as the last member of Easy Company seems like WP:BIO1E, and the coverage as a living member of Easy Company doesn't appear to rise to level of independent notability". But that's post hoc rationalization on my part. Ljleppan (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge as proposed above. No notable decorations and nothing aside from being a member of a unit someone wrote about and dying last. I'm sure others will quibble, but I'm not a fan of the 'last surviving/dying' thing counting as notability. Intothatdarkness 13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Merge to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) as there appears to be no real independent notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 22 July 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. czar 20:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chalchihuites mine[edit]

Chalchihuites mine (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 mineral deposit. Only source is from the company itself. From searching, I was able to find references to exploratory drilling in the company's SEC filings [7], [8] but any development of a mine is years out and I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. There's an (unrelated?) silver mine in the Chalchihuites area (First Majestic's Del Toro Silver mine [9], formerly Oremex's Chalchihuites silver project [10]), so the name isn't terribly specific anyway. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 19:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 17 July 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 Bill Engvall#Discography. czar 20:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aged and Confused[edit]

Aged and Confused (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)

Current sources are just retailers or primary sources. AllMusic entry is blank. No sources found on GNews, Newspapers.com, or GBooks. Redirect contested because "permastub" apparently isn't a reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bill Engvall#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows a handful of mentions in various magazines. SBKSPP (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bill Engvall#Discography ,fails WP:NALBUM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:14, 24 July 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 Pat Sajak#Career. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Sajak Weekend[edit]

Pat Sajak Weekend (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)

Found a couple sources dating from when the show began, but they just all covered the novelty of it. There seemed to be little to no coverage of the show during its run or after the fact (outside a couple "how rich is Pat Sajak?" listicles), suggesting a violation of WP:SUSTAINED and therefore, of WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pat_Sajak#Career, which mentions this topic by name. In general, if a title makes for a useful search term/phrase, redirecting it as an alternative to deletion before coming to AfD will save us all time. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:14, 24 July 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. czar 19:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Donato[edit]

Daniele Donato (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 reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Big Brother. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the coverage is not at the level we would need to show that a reality show contestant was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notailbity guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)*[reply]
• Keep Meets notability guidelines. I suggest expanding the article with new information. Ugla'a (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you suggest some new information with suitable independant sources? -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG could not find sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:22, 24 July 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. czar 19:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie McGee[edit]

Eddie McGee (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)

Won a season of Big Brother in 2000, followed by a few bit acting parts; is winning one reality series two decades ago sufficient to establish notability? Bgsu98 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the reality show appearance and bit acting credits are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:03, 19 July 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. czar 20:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Daniel[edit]

Drew Daniel (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)

Won a season of Big Brother in 2004 and nothing since then; is winning one reality series two decades ago sufficient to establish notability? Bgsu98 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable reality television show contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:18, 24 July 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. czar 20:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Food trucks in Tampa, Florida[edit]

Food trucks in Tampa, Florida (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)

Wikipedia is not a place to list anything that happens to be popular in a random city. Food trucks didn't originate the Tampa that this is an arbitrary article. I'm sure every major city has had a couple of local news stories about how food trucks are becoming popular, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. This could be reduced to a paragraph that is inserted in the economy section of Tampa. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources don't treat "Food trucks in Tampa" as a notable topic - it's just a bunch of local articles that mention food trucks. The first sentence is ridiculous: "Food trucks have become a popular phenomenon in Tampa and St. Petersburg, Florida" They're popular virtually everywhere. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing to see here; move along. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we have no sources that treat the subject as one that can be given a reliable sourced article that says something actually substnatial about the topic per se. No demonstration that there is anything unique to food trucks in this area that would justify an encyclopedic article on this sub-set of food trucks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we should have WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES for just such a list, Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:08, 24 July 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!} 21:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren-Marie Haywood[edit]

Lauren-Marie Haywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. 8 pageviews in 30 days for a BLP is not encouraging either. Edwardx (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:Artist. Promotional and I cannot find reliable coverage of this artist. Created by a single topic editor. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable artist, hits on her name but not related to her. Appears to be a vanity spam article here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon (comics)[edit]

Deacon (comics) (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)

Topic fails WP:GNG. There appear to be no noteworthy reliable sources discussing the character in a real world context. TTN (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. TTN (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to be a very minor fictional character - according to a Marvel wiki, he only appeared in a small number of issues, and I cannot find any substantial coverage on the character in reliable, secondary sources. Note that this character is completely unrelated to Deacon Frost, a somewhat more notable character, who is usually the result of searching for any information on a Marvel character with the name of "Deacon". I see that a WP:PROD was declined a couple years back with the suggestion of a merge, but I disagree with this - the character is very minor, there is no actual sourced material here outside of primary-sourced plot summaries, and the various Marvel character lists should not just be a dumping ground for completely non-notable characters about which there has never been any kind of reliably sourced discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per BOZ. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - Per the comments above, not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When incoming links from templates are removed, this article only has 6 incoming links from non-list articles. Of those, Orb (comics) Scarecrow (Marvel Comics), and Madcap (comics) actually use the same sentence for the name-drop: [the article subject] is later one of the villains considered by Blackout and the Deacon to help them assassinate the Ghost Rider. Blackout (Lilin) has a name drop in a list. Ghost Rider has a line entry for Deacon under Enemies, but nothing else. Only Caretaker (comics) provides any context for Deacon, and it's still pretty unsubstantial. The character seems to be completely non-noteworthy even in the Ghost Rider fiction, let alone in the Marvel Universe. I see no reason to retain any information about him. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and/or redirect per BOZ. Striving for compromise, and agree that this is otherwise short of what we need for WP:GNG. Can leave it to editors to summarize what is worth WP:PRESERVEing. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - near as I can tell, the character appeared in about five issues of one Ghost Rider series, and a couple of other spots - nine appearances in total. That's ... not a lot. Combined with a lack of secondary sources, I can't see this sticking around. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective Merge/Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: D per BOZ. Poor article with OR, and doesn't meet GNG (I don't have access to the magazines, but as far as I can tell they are plot summaries, which are insufficient to count towards SIGCOV). But I suppose as there's a fine merging target, WP:PRESERVE probably apply, but we would have to be cautious in that, as the article's OR and very descriptive, so unencyclopedic prose needs to be summarised and cleaned up. Redirect is also to me a fair option. VickKiang (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE like @BOZ: had pitched. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:47, 21 July 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!} 06:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Creepy Crawlies[edit]

Giant Creepy Crawlies (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 about a documentary television film, not reliably sourced as passing either WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. As always, films don't get an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, and must show some properly sourced evidence of significance (notable film or television awards, critical analysis, etc.) -- but the only claim of notability on offer here is that it existed, the only "source" is its IMDb entry, and the article has been flagged for lacking sourcing since 2008 without ever having any new sourcing added to bolster notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources found. Only hits on spiders in general. Oaktree b (talk) 01:59, 19 July 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. albeit weakly Star Mississippi 01:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Jerusalem[edit]

Children of Jerusalem (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 about a film series, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- they must show some reliably sourced evidence of significance, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis by professional film critics.
But the only notability claim on offer here is that it exists, the article is so poorly formatted that four of the seven films in the series only have an "empty section" tag and another one consists only of an offsite link to the studio's own website, and other than one piece of "where are the kids now?" in a newspaper two decades after the end of the series (which isn't enough coverage all by itself) this is otherwise referenced entirely to IMDb and the studio rather than third-party coverage in GNG-worthy sources -- and even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't google, all I'm getting is event calendar listings and accidental text matches for unrelated topics.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have a lot more than just one hit of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• A possible contemporary ref from CM: Canadian Review of Materials?[11] - I am not sure where that stands regarding WP:RS Artw (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Found a short NYTimes review in a round up article, together with the Forward piece I believe that it just scrapes by. Artw (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Borderline, but I think it just passes by GNG. One long paragraph is needed to meet GNG, and The NY Times coverage is an RS and just long enough. The Forward is, per WP, a progressive socialist newspaper, but I feel it's definitely an RS for films, and the coverage is very extensive! So there are two RS that are significant and indepedent, so GNG is met, albeit barely. VickKiang (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per above Andrevan@ 21:27, 22 July 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 Musk family. This appears to be the rough consensus to solve to the competing issues around notability. History is there if anything that isn't already present is worth including. Star Mississippi 02:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Musk[edit]

Errol Musk (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)

Appears to violate WP:NOTINHERETED as there is no significant coverage that is not directly in the context of his relationship to Elon Musk. I would suggest a merge, but there isn't any non-trivial content that's not already included at Elon Musk. ––FormalDude talk 16:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa. ––FormalDude talk 16:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created the article. It is about a notable subject who has appeared in the news and in books over a period of years and about whom there is plenty independent and significant coverage in reliable sources. The nominator has mentioned the very relevant essay WP:NOTINHERITED which I quote: Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. which seems clearly to mean that nothing or nobody should have an article, just because of their relationship with someone, sources are needed. Of course, I agree. And the most important part of that esay, in my opinion is this: Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG..

So. for for example, Prince Charles is only famous because his mother was Queen Elizabeth. Does it mean he should have no article? Princess Diana was only notable because she married Charles. Should we delete her article too? No. Of course, not, because despite them only being notable based on marriage and birth, they meet WP:GNG in their own right. That is what this essay calls for, just the normal thing, meeting WP:GNG. So, does Errol Musk meet WP:GNG? Are there multiple, independent, reliable sources that have significant coverage? Yes. There are cited in the article. But for the avoidance of doubt, here are some:

1. https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3181794/meet-elon-musks-controversial-father-errol-tesla-ceo (about the subject)
2. https://buffalonews.com/business/local/exploring-the-otherworldly-ambitions-of-elon-musk/article_2fc57479-93eb-5016-b724-016b48a4f4f3.html (significant coverage, being 8 mentiones)
3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-errol-musk-children-stepdaughter-b2123744.html (about the subject)
4. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a40621623/errol-musk-fathered-child-with-stepdaughter/ (about the subject)
5. https://web.archive.org/web/20150703011435/https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2015/07/02/how-to-raise-a-billionaire-an-interview-with-elon-musks-father-errol-musk/ (about the subject, an interview, so in my opinion good for notability, less good for verifiability)
6. There is also significant coverage in various books over the years, I can't hyperlink to them, but a search in google books shows them.

In summary, the essay above just calls for meeting WP:GNG. I had some concerns about this article in the context of criminal allegations about the subject and you'll see conversation with @Kj cheetham and another editor on the talk page, who I pinged for a second opinion. But I have no doubts that he meets WP:GNG and I think the nominator is mistaken in their understanding of WP:NOTINHERETED. From a technical points of view, WP:NOTINHERETED is an essay, an opinion piece (and a very agreeable one) but WP:GNG is an actual guideline, and outranks it anyway. Meeting WP:GNG is the gold standard for notability and I think the article is aligned with both essay and guideline. CT55555 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He gets news coverage on his own so passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:BLP and WP:NOT policy, including concerns over the tabloid-style, sensationalized sources and nonindependent content supporting this article, e.g. Meet Elon Musk’s controversial father, Errol: the Tesla CEO called his South African dad ‘evil’ and denied rumours of family wealth fuelled by an emerald mine – but are they ready to reconcile? (SCMP, 2022); Exploring the otherworldly ambitions of Elon Musk (Buffalo News, 2014, "said Errol Musk, Elon’s 68-year-old father, in a rare interview"; this article is focused on Elon, biographical information about Errol is brief and Elon-focused), Elon Musk’s father reveals he has had a second child with his own stepdaughter - report (The Independent, 2022, churnalism from the non-RS tabloid The Sun; The Cosmopolitan article linked above is the same); How To Raise A Billionaire: An Interview With Elon Musk's Father, Errol Musk (Forbes, 2014, an interview about Elon); book sources also appear to be focused on Elon and insufficient to support WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability for Errol based on the limited content about his career in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, per WP:N, A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. (emphasis added). WP:BLP policy includes Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources [...] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Beccaynr (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article does not include any "claims". Everything is cited in reliable sources and the recent news is very well documented in news media from all around the world. CT55555 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There appear to be a lot of 'claims' in the sensationalist reports - the churnalism from The Telegraph is another example, in addition to sources that explictly state they rely on the deprecated non-RS The Sun (i.e. The Independent, Cosmopolitan). The recent news is tabloid and tabloid-style sensationalism, churned in multiple outlets. Beccaynr (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In the context of the specific piece of information being volunteered by him in an interview, and that being reported by a lot of sources (just search for his name at Google News), I think it's strange to think of this as a "claim". I also think we cannot just assume that the first news source to report something is the only one who fact-checked it. I might feel less confident if this wealthy individual has disputed it or if there was some content being disputed by anyone, anywhere. CT55555 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Much of the article content is focused on a scandal related to him and low-profile living people, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL, which is what I attempted to link to above in the first WP:NOT policy link. The recent sources are also filled with claims about various people based on interviews with other people, which makes Wikipedia a primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. SCMP even uses the term 'rumours' in its headline. Beccaynr (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTSCANDAL is policy and steers us away from gossip. I quote Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. That policy is entirly about accuracy, not about judgement. Everything is cited and verifiable. How we individually perceive contents to reflect on him, our point of view, must be set side. CT55555 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the "or" helps interpret the policy as beyond the gossip and rumors in the sources and includes the scandal described in the article, despite the subject admitting to it. Per WP:V, specifically WP:ONUS, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and this is a scandalous, trivial detail about his personal life, that is disproportionately prominent in the article. With this content removed, there does not appear to be much beyond his relationship with his notable son to support his own notability, which appears to be within the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline and supports deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The weight of the detail, in my opinion, is equivalent to the news it got. What is or is not a "scandal" is a point of view and we should avoid that. I sense we are not going to persuade each other. That's OK.

  I think every point we're disagreeing on leads me back to the simple fact of the subject being being notable as per WP:GNG so I'll try to make that my last reply to you here. CT55555 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources seem to support referring to this disproportionately-covered detail of his personal life as a 'scandal' because it is tabloid fodder, and other news outlets are churning the tabloid content in a sensationalized manner, and an otherwise generally reliable source such as SCMP refers to him as "controversial" while also printing 'rumours' and what Elon says about him. WP:GNG is not enough to support WP:N, which is why I added the additional comment after my first comment. There appear to be significant source-supported, policy-backed concerns with this article that support deletion, and nothing specifically identified beyond the sensationalized coverage to support notability independent from his son. Beccaynr (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To briefly respond to these points:

  • WP:INVALIDBIO really says the same as WP:NOTINHERITED - people related to others need sources in the same way. I quote That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A) The part in brackets is key. I hope I addressed that above.
  • Regarding WP:NOT the only part that I think could conceivably apply here is the bit about being PROMO or publishing thoughts, I think this article does neither. But I welcome any edits if flaws are identified.
  • WP:BLP I think this is BLP compliant.
  • Both WP:SCMP and The Independent are highlighted green WP:RSPSS as reliable sources. The Cosmopolitan is yellow, it requires a case-by-case analysis. There is also reporting from other reliable sources such as The Telegraph. I've used no depreciated sources. The Independent and The Sun are owned by different corporations, I see no reason to assume The Independent is unable to do it's own reporting or fact checking, it's an established journalistic organization.
  • That some books are more about his son doesn't means they don't contain significant coverage of him. Quoting WP:SIGCOV Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. CT55555 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not think we have enough sourcing that is actually about him, as opposed to just incidental mentions in relation to his son, to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Considering WP:ATD and notwithstanding my keep vote, which I standby, a redirect to Musk family seems like the most dramatic outcome that anyone should be considering. CT55555 (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having received news articles/separate coverage about himself, I believe passes notability guidelines. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm a bit on the fence with this one, but if the outcome is delete, there should still be a redirect for this name put in place. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Having thought about this a bit longer, redirect is the best way forward. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Musk family. Notability is WP:INHERITED and the individual can be adequately covered as a section within the family's article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Due to the WP:NOT policy concerns outlined above, I oppose a redirect without first deleting this article. There appears to be sufficient reason to delete the article history due to the tabloid-style, sensationalist sources, and also the poorly-sourced WP:BLPCRIME content [12] that previously appeared in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The crime thing (which I deleted before moving from draft, to be cautious) is a quote that appears widely online in reliable sources, so I think needs to not be included as per the guideline, but it's not the sort of thing that warranted hiding previous version. But if you disagree, that can be done now and doesn't require deleting a whole article or it's entire history. CT55555 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Musk family. Not much coverage as of now for notability, but i think the eventuality would be to redirect it. MrHerii (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Musk family. He is not independently notable enough to meet the GNG and NOT tests (particularly NOTGOSSIP). Even if one were to consider that he did meet those conditions, there is in any case not enough independently notable information about him to pass WP:PAGEDECIDE. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thanks to edits by User:La_lopi his career section is now expanded and includes his election in 1972 to Pretoria City Council. I hope this alleviates the concerns that people raised about over reliance on tabloid or sensationalist only content, and I think it must further remove any WP:BLP1E concerns. CT55555 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The addition of a minor detail from Elon Musk Left a South Africa That Was Rife With Misinformation and White Privilege (New York Times, May 2022, includes quotes and information from Errol Musk) does not seem to help avoid reasons to delete this article and then create a redirect. The sensationalist and tabloid sources do not support his notability, and there does not appear to be sufficient independent and reliable support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability to support this article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This deplorable person passes GNG sadly.★Trekker (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect seems the rational course. I don't see anything here that states is notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Musk family. This appears to be a WP:NOTINHERETED situation. Bruxton (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since it's been nominated for deletion, this page has been viewed approximately 10,000 times per day. It has grown by about 30% in length due to edits from 8 editors who have added career and family information, and it is now a C class article. News about the subject have appeared I think multiple times every day with outlets in Europe, Asia, and the Americas all discussing his rather dislikable behaviour. So while he is a rather dislikable man, about 60,000 wikipedia users have learned about him since the 17th of this month. CT55555 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The class doesn't really matter for this discussion (though it's barely C class in my opinion), neither does the number of hits I don't think. It all comes down to the sourcing. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk averages 70k+ per day. I wish I could see that Errol Musk was notable. I see an unremarkable person and I struggle to see anything notable bout him. Bruxton (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that that the intent of the rating system was for it to be conducted by an independent editor, not by the page's creator and main contributor. Certainly self-rating can't be used as justification for keeping the page. I applaud your efforts to find reliably sourced facts, but they don't change the truth that the only notable thing about the subject is his family. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rating given by me was that suggested by the automatic rater tool, which was recommended to me, I think by @Kj cheetham. I think the rating is non controversial. I think it's normal for reasonably experienced editors to rate articles as per suggested ratings. If anyone thinks the C rating is incorrect, of course, they can change it. CT55555 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 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) 03:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 7596[edit]

NGC 7596 (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:NASTRO, no coverage aside from trivial mentions or comprehensive databases. ComplexRational (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Apart from a few discovery details,[13] I could find no in-depth studies of this lenticular galaxy. Praemonitus (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I don't think this meets GNG. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, The galaxy was discovered after 1850, making this a non notable object Speed doesn't always mean quality. (talk) 17:56, 21 July 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 04:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Machines[edit]

Mega Machines (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 about a documentary film series, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not given an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, and must show some reliably sourced evidence of significance -- but the only notability claim even being attempted here is that this exists, and the referencing is entirely to promotional content on either Amazon.com or the self-published website of its own production studio rather than WP:GNG-worthy third party media coverage about it. It's also been flagged for notability concerns since 2013 without ever having any new secondary sources added. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two Lumps[edit]

Two Lumps (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 secondary sources are interviews, both of which seem to have come from WP:SPS. No better sources found in a WP:BEFORE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – a ComixTalk interview and an interview in a website I've never heard of is indeed not enough. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The comic is widely known as "anti-Garfield". jfeise (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jfeise: I'm not finding any new sources through that name. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfeise Please provide sources for this assertion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I could not find any substantial secondary sources. The two secondary sources in the articles are not reliable as they are just interviews presenting the creators words verbatim. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing here indicates this meets WP:NMEDIA/WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG. No awards, a few reviews/mentions in niche media. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 18 July 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harjit Kaur Talwandi[edit]

Harjit Kaur Talwandi (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 politician; not elected, therefore not covered by WP:NPOL. Sources cited provide only the briefest of passing mentions, and a search finds nothing better, therefore fails WP:GNG also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  She is one of the most prominent woman politicians in Punjab. She is one the most active politicians in Punjab.She belongs from the Talwandi family.Her father was Jagdev Singh Talwandi, who has remained the President of Shiromani Akali Dal twice.Jagdev Singh Talwandi was elected thrice to the Vidhan Sabha, 1 time to Lok Sabha and 1 time to Rajya Sabha.Currently his children are taking his legacy forward.Harjit Kaur Talwandi is the President of women's wing of one of the most renowned Political Parties in Punjab.Before being elected as the president of the Women's wing, she has served at various positions in Shiromani Akali Dal Party. Smt. Harjit kaur Talwandi is a well recognised face in Punjab. LudhianaUser (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:01, 17 July 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) Femke (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Divya S. Iyer[edit]

Divya S. Iyer (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, junior level IAS Officer. There are over 600 District Collector rank officers in India. You will find single-event mention of almost every IAS officer in WP:RS. Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athar Aamir Khan (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Dabi User4edits (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Medicine, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the sources in the article support WP:BASIC notability for this IAS officer, medical doctor, and author. Beccaynr (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources seem independent and reliable. Onmyway22 talk 14:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to meet WP:GNG, more than just due to being an IAS officer. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:59, 24 July 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 23:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Chase[edit]

Courtney Chase (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)

Wasn't notable 10 years ago, and my searches suggest she still isn't. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and New York. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a few roles as a child is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough WP:SIGCOV to show notability. KylieTastic (talk) 16:34, 17 July 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) 03:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Aijaz Asad[edit]

Mohammad Aijaz Asad (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, junior IAS officer. Peers have been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharanya Ari and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athar Aamir Khan (2nd nomination) User4edits (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As shown in the examples, all bureaucrats are not notable. Only the top level, chief secretary. No major work or award either. Venkat TL (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines agree with Venkat Proton Dental (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also see I want to add an article about myself. by the user who created the page, and whose contributions have been largely only to the Mohammad Aijaz Asad. 14:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nom junior IAS officer fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 22 July 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. ✗plicit 23:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Short Film Festival Cine a la Calle[edit]

International Short Film Festival Cine a la Calle (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)

Dubious notability, no references (fails WP:V). PROD declined two years ago as "there are sources on es wiki". I am not sure they are reliable or in-depth, even with machine translation their coverage looks borderline. I'd redirect this if not improved but I am not sure where. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Colombia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it need more sources, but looks okay for a short film festival. --95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn’t meet GNG, couldn’t find any reliable, independent refs upon a search on Google, News, and Books. VickKiang (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: the first and third sources on the Spanish Wikipedia article are reliable and independent, as is this source about the 2020 edition [14] and this one about the 2021 edition [15]. It's probably never going to be much more than a stub but I think it just about passes notability guidelines. Richard3120 (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 17 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dharia[edit]

Dharia (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)

Nothing here in the description or the references suggests the subject qualifies as notable per WP:GNG, no subject-specific guideline qualifies her automatically. A loose necktie (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — random performer, no evidence of meeting WP:NMUSIC. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NMUSIC says a singer may be notable if they had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Now the subject was listed in Billboard India, Radiomonitor Turkey and Airplay 100 Romania. Is this not sufficient for notability? Shubjt (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources found, only hits on variants of her name. We would need chart listings to show she's charted as discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: I don't get what you mean by no sources found? There are inline citations in the article. Shubjt (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on the internet and could find no sources of my own to verify notability, in English anyway. Might be some in Turkish or Romanian, neither of which I can read. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teach 2 Learn[edit]

Teach 2 Learn (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)

Unable to find significant independent coverage about this student-run organization, except in some local news sources. Seems like a wonderful initiative but does not appear to meet WP:ORG. – Ploni (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, United States of America, and Texas. Ploni (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Little coverage, does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:44, 24 July 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 23:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houseplant care[edit]

Houseplant care (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)

After a serious attempt, I've determined that this article really can't be made into anything other than a how-to. It was transwiki'd in 2012 and I think that's sufficient. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 17:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Houseplants Wiki. I agree that this is a how-to and I also can't find what to do with this on Wikipedia, but the content might well be useful on Fandom-hosted wiki, where the content would be freely licensed under compatible CC-BY-SA terms. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Moved the relevant sections to Houseplants Wiki page "Houseplant". Some of that page seems to be a fork of an earlier version of this page, but I moved everything else. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 12:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that it's been transwiki'd I see no reason to keep it on Wikipedia. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too general to be on Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The WP:NOTABLE elements of houseplant care can be discussed in the main houseplant article. There is already a section for this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houseplant#Care The void century (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cry in December[edit]

Cry in December (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)

Unable to find any independent coverage, reviews, etc., even with what appears to be their new name. – Ploni (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Indonesia. Ploni (talk) 12:50, 17 July 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 per WP:CSD#G5 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfaque Nabi[edit]

Ashfaque Nabi (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/WP:BIO not an elected politician so fails WP:NPOL - several sources PR extreme puff. (creator could also be blocked as sock of Dcmpedia who previously tried to create) KylieTastic (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added links to support article Whistleswhite (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spiderone the article is supported by several news refrences.

  https://hindustanherald.com/ashfaque-nabi-a-true-youth-icon-in-indian-politics/

  https://hindi.news18.com/news/nation/ashfaque-nabi-is-full-of-public-interest-along-with-politics-4381800.html

  and many others. cc- @KylieTastic Whistleswhite (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @KylieTastic after you find this article notable. remove the deletion notice from the article. Whistleswhite (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ashfaque Nabi is a state level politician. office post holder of Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee Whistleswhite (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No he is not an elected politician he is a "General Secretary in Social Media Department" KylieTastic (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @KylieTastic another news reference - https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/metro/delhi/delhi-times/delhi-youth-congress-leader-ashfaque-nabi-demands-rahul-gandhi-as-party-president/articleshow/92227268.cms

  multiple news reference already cited. remove the deletion notice. Whistleswhite (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @KylieTastic another news reference supporting article - https://thepresswalla.com/politics/ashfaque-nabi-a-politician-from-delhi-well-known-for-his-creative-impactful-social-media-skills/ Whistleswhite (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No another example of self promotion just "published" today. KylieTastic (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @KylieTastic ok. do consider this page. kindly remove the deletion notice. thank you Whistleswhite (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @KylieTastic also this is not promoting, the artilce received coverage from neutral publishers. i;e: Independent sources. Whistleswhite (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no presence in WP:RS, cited only to paid-for spam. Nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:NPOL per nom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spiderone for your information, here is the two WP:RS sources:

  1- https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/metro/delhi/delhi-times/delhi-youth-congress-leader-ashfaque-nabi-demands-rahul-gandhi-as-party-president/articleshow/92227268.cms

  2- https://hindi.news18.com/news/nation/ashfaque-nabi-is-full-of-public-interest-along-with-politics-4381800.html

  thank you Whistleswhite (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do not delete this article Whistleswhite (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP 122.161.79.119 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also clearly the IP related to the creator. KylieTastic (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @KylieTastic kindly remove the deletion notice, provided news reference above. thank you Whistleswhite (talk) 15:34, 17 July 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) 03:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Mishra[edit]

Aishwarya Mishra (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)

Moved to draftspace but immediately returned to main; does not appear to pass WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. 'Basic' search does not reveal anything in the way of SIGCOV. Eagleash (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not meeting notability guidelines as suggested by the nominator. Hitro talk 17:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing even close to showing a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom fails WP:NATHLETE and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 24 July 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) 03:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra Financial Group[edit]

Tetra Financial Group (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:COMPANY. The sources are either announcements or non-independent. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article text describes the firm's market proposition and particularly the announcement of a financial instrument in which it was involved. The references are a mix of listings (some now obsolete) and announcement coverage, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The company website is no longer operating, their Utah business listing expired in 2018, so the position is unlikely to change in future. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:28, 24 July 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bosera Asset Management[edit]

Bosera Asset Management (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)

promotional , and non-notable Fails WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bosera is a major firm in China. In my opinion there is significant coverage of Bosera in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the firm in english let alone in Chinese. The article definitely requires work to read less promotional and to add more citations, but should be kept. Seigerman (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 17 July 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) 03:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norway international footballers born outside Norway[edit]

List of Norway international footballers born outside Norway (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 with List of Bahrain international footballers born outside Bahrain (AfD), List of Iran international footballers born outside Iran (AfD) and List of Syria international footballers born outside Syria (AfD), I fail to see how this list meets our inclusion criteria. Fails WP:LISTN due to lack of coverage on these individuals as a group or set and also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and appears to be a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation. In other words, where is the evidence of detailed discussion regarding the birthplaces of Norway international footballers? Could be merged perhaps but I fail to see why this information is important as Wikipedia is not supposed to be an exhaustive collection of stats. Just because information an be verified by statistics databases doesn't mean that we absolutely need to have an article on it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another similar article that fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate.--Mvqr (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the reasoning on all the other similar lists that were deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons given above. --Bduke (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with reasons above. Fats40boy11 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per past AFD consensus. I don't see this as any different. GiantSnowman 18:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Asian Women's Volleyball Championship[edit]

2023 Asian Women's Volleyball Championship (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)

Wholly unsourced. I cannot find any info about plans for this edition of the tournament in asianvolleyball.net/ or anywhere else for that matter like media in volleyball-mad countries (e.g. Philippines and Vietnam itself) including the supposed draw on July 12, 2022. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Vietnam. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article looks to be a copy of the 2021 Asian Women's Volleyball Championship article, which was cancelled. The lead is identical even if the unsourced qualification tables are not. If there is a genuine championship for this in 2023, then at that point an article can be re-created with correct information, but right now this article is somewhere between a copy of an existing article and a possible hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 19 July 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) 03:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Landscaping And Its Tools[edit]

Rural Landscaping And Its Tools (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 book is a book. There is no indication that this book is notable. References given here are to different versions of the book. A loose necktie (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable book, doesn't satisfy WP:NB. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Major copyvio from here --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - references aren't independent, and a Google search doesn't seem to turn up anything else at all. Gazamp (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NB.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is he's well cited enough, and AfD is not cleanup Star Mississippi 01:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Pike[edit]

Christian Pike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. No fellowships to societies (the John Douglas French one is a grant). Gusfriend (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, and Medicine. Gusfriend (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With 30 papers with over 100 cites a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. He has almost 13,000 citations and an h-index of 56 on Scopus. This is indeed a high-citation field, and while he's only around the top 15% of his coauthors by h-index I think that's still going to put him way above the median citation profile of his peers. JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice against a properly recreated article in the future. He may be notable but this is barely represented by this article's sourcing, which couldn't be more meager. I'm willing to change my !vote if the article sees some improvement during the discussion. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meager sources? There are 13,000 of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The article only cites one. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sourcing within the article needs improvement, but he passes WP:NPROF via citations and h-index. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meet WP:NPROF due to academic citations. WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a lot of citations and clearly meets WP:NPROF Kazanstyle (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but Delete if nobody can demonstrate that this passes WP:NPROF with independent reliable sources that pass WP:NOTABLE. Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work.

I'm not certain that the Turken Award counts as a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level , as per WP:NACADEMIC. I don't mean to be insensitive or discount this person's obvious accomplishments, but Wikipedia has very specific requirements for notability. The void century (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPROF is "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". To me this is a clear pass under criteria 1, sub-section a: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work." The majority of citations are independant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:57, 23 July 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. This individual appears to be right on the knife edge of notability. Despite concerted efforts to stretch the definitions of WP:NACADEMIC to declare this individual notable, I find rough consensus here that she does not quite pass those requirements just yet. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Roberts[edit]

Joanne Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, refs here are all to primary sources that lack independence, does not qualify as notable per WP:ACADEMIC, does not hold a named chair nor edit a major academic journal. A loose necktie (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment/question. She is the president of Yale-NUS College. WP:NACADEMIC criterion 6 is met if The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.. How do we establish if Yale-NUS College is a "major academic institution"? It has 140 staff teaching about 1,000 students, a 11 year history - to me that seems maybe major? It has a page with no tags, so we appear to consider it notable. Is notable synonymous with major? CT55555 (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The answer to "Is notable synonymous with major?" should be "no". -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject was co-editor of a major journal (meaning one of the four chief editors in this case https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15405982) => Criterium 8 is met

President of Yale-NUS College - which is a major although recent institution => Criterium 6 is met.

Only one criterium is necessary for notability. JamesKH76 (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She was one of four co-editors under a managing editor (David Green)[16]. That is not equivalent to "chief editor", that's just being on an editorial board. Yale-NUS also isn't an independent university, as degrees are conferred by NUS; it seems to function more as an "honors college" within NUS. JoelleJay (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A managing editor plays no academic role, they process the flux of manuscripts and usually work for the publisher. I can confirm that a co-editor in this situation is indeed a co-chief editor. Check the link above where the top editors are named co-editor. The editorial board is another body.

Yale-NUS is a joint venture between two major universities. Seems notable to me. JamesKH76 (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. From the link above: The top two tiers, composed by the managing editor(s) and associate editors or coeditors, are in charge of the referee process and the editorial decision-making. The managing editor is the top tier here. And Yale-NUS operates as an honors college within NUS; presidents of honors colleges (or any other sub-university colleges like "college of engineering") are not notable through C6. JoelleJay (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per my reasoning above. JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- prior to her position at Yale-NUS, she was a full professor at the University of Calgary. She received a Canada Research Chair where she worked on plea bargains. This field of research was covered in the news, and is now clarified in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Being a Canada Research Chair is a clear pass at criterion 5 of WP:NACADEMIC https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2009/03/government-canada-provides-support-canada-research-chairs-eight-universities-western-canada.html confirms she was one. CT55555 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject specific notability guideline for this sort of things is quite clear. Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. 5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. CT55555 has proven they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 07:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC) I am now unsure do to information presented. Dream Focus 01:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. @DaffodilOcean deserves the credit for me getting to my conclusion. CT55555 (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep due to being a Canada Research Chair. Being president of Yale-NUS College and a journal co-editor are not sufficient to me, as per JoelleJay's comments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete Changing to delete as didn't realise it was more like a grant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the subject meets our guidelines for inclusion. Was a full professor at the University of Calgary, president of a college, co-editor of the Canadian Journal of Economics, and an author. Lightburst (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the notes section of WP:ACADEMIC, The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?. The Canada Research Chair position is not a named chair appointment from a university, it is a government grant program that funds 2,285 research professorships, so it does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC #5, which also states, Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members, and her CV says she began this research grant before she obtained a full professorship. Per JoelleJay and #8, she was not the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area, and per #6, a recently-established small branch of a major university that is in the process of closing (Yale and National U. of Singapore Announce End of Prominent Joint Liberal-Arts College, Chronicle of Higher Education, "Yale-NUS College, as it's known, will be merged into a new, interdisciplinary honors college in 2025") does not appear to have support in sources to be considered a major academic institution. I also searched the WP Library, and found a book review for what may be a short book she wrote, in addition to the one book review cited for a different co-edited book; WP:NAUTHOR notability also does not appear supported at this time, and there does not appear to be support for other WP:NACADEMIC criteria, nor WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My answer to a question asking if she is clearly more notable than the average professor, is a clear yes.

  Am I misunderstanding something, because the research chair is at a specific university (the Calgary University). I don't think that being government funded detracts from it in any way. With 2,285 research chairs created since 2000, is Canada an outlier in some way? CT55555 (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Roberts received a 5-year grant while she was junior-level faculty; per the Canadian government website, this is a Tier 2 Chair, which are "tenable for five years and renewable once, [and] are for exceptional emerging researchers, acknowledged by their peers as having the potential to lead in their field." The website also states, "Nominees for Tier 2 Chair positions must be emerging scholars." WP:NACADEMIC #5 states, Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members, so this grant does not appear to support this criterion, in addition to not being a named chair or distinguished professor position established by the university for tenured full professors. Beccaynr (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry to keep asking questions, but I'm trying to reach consensus rather than just say keep and walk away. When it says it cannot be "applied reliably" do you consider that to mean it can never be applied, or does it indicate to you that we need to consider surrounding factors. Because to me it suggests the later and I'm seeing a lot of other things above that alone don't get her past the bar, but combined seem to add up to something. Combined with the definition including the word "exceptional" seems like a keep vote still seems reasonable here. But I say that as a question, inviting critique. CT55555 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It cannot be applied reliably and therefore cannot be used to establish notability through C5. There are many many grants and academic awards that describe themselves as being reserved for "exceptional" candidates; the reason we restrict our criteria to senior faculty and have very strict guidance on what factors can even partially contribute to NPROF is because there is so much promotionalism within academia. Regardless of all that, though, research grants do not ever count towards C5 so the point is moot. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I consider the word only to be a key part of interpreting the criterion that says can be applied reliably only, and the additional detail not for junior faculty members a helpful clarification about surrounding factors. The definition of this grant also twice includes the word "emerging", which seems to emphasize the junior-level nature of the Tier 2 grant. Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly what Beccaynr said. Government grants do not confer notability, especially not ones reserved for early-career researchers. JoelleJay (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for critique I was convinced about the research chair, but respect the counter arguments. My preference to include makes me want to say that all these almost/half meets of various subject matter notability requirements should add up to a whole, but I think I must vote delete due to the lack of significant independent coverage. This is some sort of a heart-keep, head-delete scenario. So no updated !vote for now, waiting to see what others say first. CT55555 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• She is the President of Yale-NUS College. 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. And 6b reads Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Does this college count a "major" academic institution? Dream Focus 17:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dream Focus, because the college does not award degrees itself (rather they are awarded through NUS), and because it operates as an honors college of NUS, it cannot be considered an independent institution, much the same way that engineering colleges within universities are not separate entities for C6. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  NUS already has an Honors College (University Scholars Program), but Yale-NUS represents a distinct entity as the first liberal arts college in Singapore. It does award an NUS degree, but its curriculum and structure is sufficiently different than even the University Scholars Program at NUS. Crcolas (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's an honors college that will be merged into the other honors college in 2025. It's literally listed alongside the colleges of law and music as one of the 16 NUS colleges. Not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yale-NUS is not an Honors College. That argument is factually wrong. It is a liberal arts college. It has its own budget, governing board, president (not Dean - as for an Honors College), VPs, etc. It has three academic divisions, 14 majors, minors, etc. Its own admissions process. Yes, it is listed along side colleges at NUS, but you will note the website is not an NUS URL. Furthermore, it is tied to Yale in many ways that make it quite distinct from NUS (many seconded faculty from Yale over the years, the Dean of Faculty have mostly been senior faculty from Yale, etc)

  You can debate if it is a major academic institution but it is a academic institution of considerable noteworthiness in both North America and SE Asia - note articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, etc. when it was founded and when it was announced that it would close. 76.28.109.15 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, it's liberal arts college that offers exclusively honors degrees through NUS (though not through Yale). But per its charter it is still an "autonomous college of NUS", not a separate, independent university (although it is independent of Yale).

  From this article in Yale's "Accent Magazine": As expressed in the Yale-NUS charter, Yale-NUS is not an independent institution, but rather a school that exists as an autonomous institution within NUS. As reflected by our student cards, our future degrees, and whom we pay tuition to, Yale-NUS lies within NUS. JoelleJay (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the reasoning of Beccaynr (like CT55555, this is a "heart keep, head delete" situation for me). MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There are a lot of claims of notability that don't quite make it. A tier 1 Canada Research Chair would be enough for me for WP:PROF#C5 (which generally involves a level of professorial recognition a step beyond full professor) but this is tier 2, below full professor and clearly not enough. It's hard to search given the common name, but she appears to have inadequate citation counts and only one edited volume, neither enough for WP:PROF#C1 nor WP:AUTHOR. Yale-NUS is small, new, dubiously independent and imminently defunct, so the claim of WP:PROF#C6 notability is also too weak for me. She is listed as former co-editor of the Canadian Journal of Economics, but for that journal co-editor means being an equal member of the entire editorial board, not the editor-in-chief, so I don't think it passes WP:PROF#C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've been chewing this over. She almost meets a few different notability requirements, and I think more than two halves make a whole. I think it's fair to say that in the context of WP:5P5 and us taking cues from guidance, that a bit of human analysis is ok here and this emotional biological lump of carbon and water thinks that the encyclopedia is better to have her in it. CT55555 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's co-editor of a major journal, president of a university (sure a small satellite one but still), was president of the Canadian Women's Economics Network, had a Canada Research Chair (which your average academic does not get) and has thousands of citations to her publications on Google Scholar despite having been in admin positions for several years. This is definitely not an average academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lijil (talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am really confused. I see that CT55555 struck out his vote. But it appears that he/she may have inadvertently struck the vote by User:Dream Focus. Just saying ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. DF did their own strike out before. CT55555 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the nominator is incorrect. Only ONE of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria has to apply.

Caption text

Criteria from WP:NACADEMIC	Status
The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.	Not done
The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.	Done
The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).	Done
The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.	Maybe
The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.	Done
The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society	Not done
The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.	undetermined
The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area	Done

There's a difference between being a stub and being outright not notable. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1, what prestigious award has she won? What highly selective society has she been elected to? What evidence do you have she "might" have had a substantial impact on a number of academic institutions? What is her "named chair" (noting that the "Canada Research Chair Tier II" grant is unambiguously excluded from NPROF as it is neither an academic chair appointment, nor a senior-career professional award). What journal has she been chief editor of (noting that the journal she was one of four co-editors for explicitly outlines its editing hierarchy and her position is definitely not that of a chief editor)? JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said maybe indicating that I wasn't sure based on what's in the article. Is the Polanyi award not considered notable? She was chair of the Canada Research Society which satisfies the condition at NCACADEMIC, granted she wasn't chief editor of a journal in their subject area she was an editor. Holding a recognised academic position and having all of the above on balance makes her notable per NACADEMIC. Bios only have to meet one set of notability criteria. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 08:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion and the information in the article, it appears that none of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria apply. For example, the Polanyi award is for young scholars, so it is not the type of major academic award described in C#2 because emerging scholar awards do not confer a high level of academic prestige. The Tier 2 Canada Research Chair has been discussed as the type of grant that if awarded as a Tier 1, could be sufficient, but per the C#5, Tier 2 is not. C#8 only applies for the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area, and as noted above, she was not. In addition, a 2-year term as president of the Canadian Women Economists Network does not appear sufficient per C#3, because elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient. Beccaynr (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, and as shown by Beccaynr, does not meet NACADEMIC either. Also, there appears to be at least one duplicate "keep" !vote above.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - despite some worries about some sourcing in the article - in my view a noted academic by way of publications, chairs, role at Yale-NUS College and CWEN presidency. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:50, 29 July 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. Recommend revisiting this in a few months after a deeper search for offline sources can be undertaken. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devas Club[edit]

Devas Club (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, appears to be purely promotional article, unable to find any news sources mentioning this organization online. Hadal1337 (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's long history and links suggest that it is indeed notable. --Bduke (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being old doesn't make it notable. It's a local youth club, and most local youth clubs aren't notable, this one doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A notable historical club founded in 1884 with references. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Bduke. And note that being "unable to find any news sources mentioning this organization online" is odd as one story (which is already linked from the article) turns up immediately on the standard search linked above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct regarding the one story being on Google. However, one hit on Google from a local news publisher does not make an article notable. Furthermore, a local youth club with 62 reviews on Google is not notable in any sense. Hadal1337 (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. a local youth club with 62 reviews on Google is certainly notable. Besides as its been around nearly 140 years there is probably more coverage which is not on line. Rathfelder (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My local post office has 168 reviews on Google. Google reviews do not imply notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Were you able to find more coverage offline or were you assuming there were more coverage offline? Hadal1337 (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is this WP:SNOWBALL? —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering most of the votes are just saying "old so notable" without demonstrating notable references, no it isn't. It's not a vote. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think it is notable based on the sources already in the article, also noting the following two. They both include quotes, but I still consider them sufficiently independent.

1. https://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/18874820.devas-club-gets-government-financial-boost/
2. https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/21122020-battersea-youth-club-looking-to-raise-funds-to-reduce-energy-use CT55555 (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of those are local news sources, not enough significant coverage in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Battersea and Delete added merge option as per ATD Yes it is old, yes it has been mentioned in some newspapers over the years, but ... there are no sources available which meet our criteria for establishing notability. Newspaper articles based on information from affiliated orgs or announcements are not "sufficiently independent". HighKing⁺⁺ 10:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does not specific coverage by the UK House of Commons confer notability (House of Commons (1904). "The Devas Institute". Parliamentary Papers 1850–1908. Vol. 73. H.M. Stationery Office. pp. 305–308.)? I think the combination of references is enough for WP:GNG and WP:ORG. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jpbowen, Volume 73 of the "Sessional Papers" records the formation of the Devas Institute as a charitable trust and records its constitution. The information is PRIMARY, fails ORGIND. It is also the case that is was common practice for the constitution of charities to be recorded in the sessionary papers in this way as parliament recorded various endowments given to charitable uses (mainly churches, hospitals, orphanages, veteran's homes, etc) as part of the City of London Parochial Charities Act, 1883. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]