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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Rajaraman[edit]

Arvind Rajaraman (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)

Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updates. Low citation count, h-index. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:SIGCOV. Very slim claim to notability. scope_creep^Talk 23:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I got this far but was unable to take it any further. Nothing more recent that I'm able to find either. Star Mississippi 23:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Keep per the below info. Star Mississippi 13:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that as well. Just a passing mention. Nothing of significance. scope_creep^Talk 00:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, and California. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) ^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. EDIT: Keep. Is an h-index of 30 and 4000+ citations on Scopus low for this field? I could answer this question myself, but he has 740 coauthors and Scopus will only list 150 of them in an exportable format, so the only way to analyze his citation profile in comparison to his coauthors' is to go to each paper and look at each author, which is extremely time-consuming. HEP/cosmology stuff tends to get a lot of citations due to having tons of collaborators, so 30 may indeed by low for his field, although 7 of his top 10 papers, ranging from 102 to 533 citations, have fewer than 5 coauthors. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JoelleJay: Can you please post the url. There is two scientists both with the same name. scope_creep^Talk 08:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57204257601 JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it might be I've got the wrong scientist. I see how Afd unfolds with more knowledgeable folk taking a look. 08:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)

• Comment. Where's the low citation count? GS has top papers 1039,563,545,431,355 (several with only short author lists), which is not my definition of low. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Because we work at the same university I should probably refrain from a formal opinion even though I don't think we've met or communicated. So I'll just add a couple of clarifications instead. His top-cited papers appear to have alphabetical coauthors so I don't think we can infer anything from author order. The article needs an update: according to his department profile he is full professor, not associate. And he appears to be the incoming chair of the faculty senate [1] but that doesn't count for much with respect to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw that profile on him either as a full professor. I think as a full professor at a major university, he is past the post. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 05:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of cricket grounds in Pakistan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Club Ground[edit]

Diamond Club Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I'm unable to find any results in a general internet, Google Scholar, and Google Books search; searching for the title given on the Urdu page only returns Wikipedia pages and mirrors, which seems like a red flag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Cricket, and Pakistan. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are mentions in at least two sources: Dawn and Tribune. Although neither deal with the ground in depth they are clearly about the ground and the club that operates it rather than simply passing mentions. On the whole I would suggest a redirect to List of cricket grounds in Pakistan is a better option to deleting here - that way if we find sources we can work on the article with a preserved history and attribution. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of cricket grounds in Pakistan. It is definitely a first-class venue but it's unlikely that the article will be expanded in the near future so best to apply WP:ATD until someone can work on it. BoJó | talk UTC 09:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of cricket grounds in Pakistan. Even Cricinfo can't give any more detail than it does exist and is in Islamabad. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom comment the above redirect proposals seem good to me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of cricket grounds in Pakistan as per other commenters, there doesn't seem to be enough here for a GNG pass, which is what we tend to see when it relates to certain Pakistani cricket related articles, but there is a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arsh Anwer Shaikh[edit]

Arsh Anwer Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, nothing better than trivial coverage in secondary sources, barely even meets the old NFOOTY standard so there's little reason to believe there's additional coverage out there. I was unable to find additional coverage searching online. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and India. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG, may have scraped through on the old guidelines alright but nothing showing up of any significance Josey Wales ^Parley 22:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I couldn't find sufficient in-depth sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of children of prime ministers of the United Kingdom[edit]

List of children of prime ministers of the United Kingdom (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 think this page should be deleted for many reasons. It is just an indiscriminate list of information, children (and grandchildren in particular!) of Prime Ministers hold no power, or official position as such, it reads like a who's who.

Most if not all of the living individuals are 'private individuals' who do not seek any particular fame.

Also, the article is almost entirely unsourced. JeffUK (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The sources consist of (a) an apparently broken link and (b) a vague link to the deprecated ThePeerage.com (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Self-published peerage websites). To the extent that a child of a prime minister is a notable person, they are sure to be mentioned in the article about their parent already. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) ^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear BLP concerns for named children who aren't notable. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this worth keeping if we limit it to those who are notable, cf. List of children of clergy? (I'm undecided, as well as undecided whether that page should exist, but it's at least better.) 3mi1y (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference, on face value, is the Children of Clergy article requires not only that entrants are notable, but that they are notable in a large part BECAUSE they are children on clergy, I doubt many children of PMs would meet that test. As an aside, I don't think that many entries on the children of clergy list actually meet that test either, but that's a separate conversation. JeffUK (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Borgias, Cesare and Lucretia, are notorious (in part) for being the children of a pope, so there's some hope for that list. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (Also List of children of clergy needs a thorough vetting. What does Nikola Tesla being the son of a priest have to do with his fame, as a non-believer, no less?) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and previous comments. This simply isn't encyclopaedic, and more than that, as mentioned it might well give undue prominence to people (especially those who are still under 18) who might well specifically want to avoid such coverage if at all possible (or indeed, if they are too young, their parents might). This belongs in a trivia book (if there) and has no bearing on practically anything that any of the prime ministers did. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would agree with the comments raised by other editors. I also think if anyone wanted information as to whether Prime Ministers had had children and they had done anything notable they would look at that Prime Minister's article, not a list of them all. Dunarc (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I also share the BLP concerns raised by other editors. Edge3 (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is a non notable intersection, doubtless created in good faith. BLP issues exist. Johnson, for example appears to have e no idea how many children he has. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater 11:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above discussion. I am especially hesitant to vote in favor of keeping articles about living children who are otherwise not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impler family[edit]

Impler family (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)

Did a before search for the Impler Family, and didn't come up with any sources that establishes this "family" as notable. Also, notable members section doesn't have any sources for it. If sources do come to light on this, please ping me, and if it rises to the leve of WP:GNG, I'll withdraw. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 15:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We're not a genealogy software, remember? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move. The Impler family is the source of the name of Implerstraße station about which we have an article and the actual Implerstraße, about which we don't yet. The state-run (and as yet very incomplete) Historisches Lexikon Bayerns has an article about the Munich Patrician families in general[2], which mentions in passing the Impler family as one of the patrician families. The article we have could reasonably be moved to "Hans Impler" as well. The Impler family and Hans Impler in particular get mentioned by sources on Bavarian history with sustained attention over several centuries.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Jahaza (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- I looked at these sources you have above, Jahaza, and it appears as though these are passing mentions of one person or another, with very little in depth coverage that would go toward an article for the family. I can actually agree with your point of moving this article to "Hans Impler." If you find more sources, please let me know. Thanks! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 12:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Repurpose as an article on Johann Impler, who appears to be of minor notability. the article appears to be an exact dictionary translation of one in the German WP, whose standards are reputed to be higher than those of the English WP. An entry in a Bavarian biographic should be enough to indicate notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep or I also agree repurpose as an article on Johann Impler per User:Peterkingiron. Taung Tan (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)' change to Delete ' as source not found. (not vote) Taung Tan (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repurpose as an article on Johann Impler per Peterkingiron.4meter4 (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Johann Impler was a councilman and was tortured and beheaded by the rebels during the civil uprising in 1385, as they held him to be partly responsible for the high tax burden (Impler uprising)." appears in DeWiki and also Munchenwiki, is happily mirrored in the city history of Munich but there is no source for this information that I could find in German. Searching Bavaricon, the Bavarian archive, merely gets passing genealogical mentions of the existence of various Implers, including mention of a 1376 church provost Johann Impler. That fact of 1376 Johann's existence is in fact the only thing confirmed by the only source cited in DeWiki for the Impler family article. Munchenwiki's article about Implerstrasse and indeed Implerplatz repeats the information but its only reference is to booking website hotel-mix.de. So quite apart from the very real concerns regarding the notability of all Implers (the DeWiki article not passing WP:GNG standards), we also have totally unverified information on Johann Impler gently spawning across Germany. Even if it were verified, it'd still be very scant ground for notability. Do we really want to repurpose a GNG-failing article about a family to a completely unsourced assertion about an individual? Because I, for one, can only see the spectre of WP:CIRCULAR here... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an ancient hoax/legend, but it's described in a number of German sources. It's not at all based on the hotel web site. Jahaza (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. And a question, how exactly does an AFD closer "repurpose" article under a deletion discussion? That sounds like an editing job. I also don't see how a repurpose overcomes the arguments for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only source cited is a dead link. Only two members of this family are listed here, one of whom is described as "Franz Impler, son of Hans Impler, a residential house owner in Munich and benefactor". If the most notable thing one can say about a person is that he owned a house, I'm just going to have to allude to the words of Shania Twain. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has one source, can't find anything about this that would be notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The three page article in a German book on heraldry here is footnoted, which suggests other sources in German likely exist. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Above editors, pls check the source provided by User:Ficaia. Taung Tan (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taung Tan, yeah I took a look at the source, and couldn't make much sense of it... but maybe I'm missing something. I figured to let the closer figure out what it is and see if it can go toward a keep result, but I wouldn't think so. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 20:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very source I quoted above - "That fact of 1376 Johann's existence is in fact the only thing confirmed by the only source cited in DeWiki for the Impler family article." I added some helpful bold this time around. The source has zero value, carries no suggestion that there may be more sources and I did take some care above to document the search for those sources and report accurately on the lack of them. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The source has zero value, carries no suggestion that there may be more sources"

It literally has footnotes in it referring to the de:Monumenta Boica. That's not a suggestion that there are other sources, it's an explicit statement that there are. Jahaza (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Monumenta Boica is huge. It's also hard to tell quite what's going on in there as my Latin's pretty rusty. It's a reference to the possibility that there may be mentions of a family name in an enormous archive consisting of 54 volumes and 65 sub-volumes that would take a professional archivist weeks if not months to parse. Be my guest - it tells us a family name exists, not that it is in any way notable or, indeed, that anything that may be attributed to this source without some very precise pointers - is in any way verifiable within reason. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to complain about a source, fine. But don't write "no suggestion that there may be more sources" when the thing literally has citations to other sources. Why would you do that? Jahaza (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that footnote and never did. I'm not complaining - I'm pointing out that the source is not reasonably verifiable and there is no claim of notability to be inferred from its existence. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is still my philosophy that 12-century historical families that are documented by one reliable source are notable. Should not judge on 12-century issue. Taung Tan (talk) 06:07, 3 November 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 Circumcision controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy[edit]

Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy (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 clearly does not meet the criteria of WP: GNG. The only references that I could find about the subject online were self-published and/or facebook sources. The only articles or published academic works I could find that mention it were brief, non-significant coverage on p. 304 of Contending with Antisemitism in a Rapidly Changing Political Climate and p. 458 of Judenbilder in der deutschen Beschneidungskontroverse. Other, self-published information about the subject is non-existent. Additionally appears to be a promotional and WP: Activism page. KlayCax (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep There seems to be enough German-language coverage, as cited in the article, for me to lean on the side of caution and say it probably meets WP:GNG even if the margin is slim. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 20:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: I agree with @ThadeusOfNazereth:. Since it is a stub article, I think it would be better to merge it with the main article Circumcision controversies as a sub-section. GenoV84 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (Note: original vote was keep, see here) I wonder why highly reputable sources like the German Deutschlandfunk, Deutsche Welle, Die Welt, and the Jüdische Allgemeine are not seen as reputable. The movement started in Germany and is already supported by organizations and intactivists in at least 20 countries worldwide after 10 years.^[1] Ulf Dunkel (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for notability isn't a "reliable source mentions it". But rather if the subject is independently notable in of itself. A source called "IntactWiki" and a 1000 follower Facebook page clearly does not meet that criteria. Wikipedia isn't a place for WP: Activism or a place to advertise movements. It's a place to chronicle notable subjects. KlayCax (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deutschlandfunk, Deutsche Welle, Die Welt all mention it in the context of passing mentions. These (and tabloid-like "see this man doing Y") clearly do not meet the criteria of notability. See:: Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. Seeing as how the only notable information about it is "it occurs on X date" — and a brief other trivial pieces of information — it's clearly strong delete/merge.

There's no reason that this information needs to be artifically WP: Fork'ed into a one sentence article. KlayCax (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I took a look at KlayCax's many edits in the Circumcision article, which tend to be pro-circumcision of children (quoting the proven circumfetishist Brian Morris, belittling Brit Shalom, etc.). Also, the WWDOGA's correct description of being against circumcision without medical indication in children was reworded by KlayCax into a blanket "anti-circumcision" movement, which is factually incorrect. Therefore, I have the impression that the attempt to delete the small article about the WWDOGA is not about formal aspects of the article, but about reducing the worldwide intactivism and thus the protection of children's human rights in favor of the medically not indicated foreskin amputation in children. Maybe we have a WP:COI here. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Ulf Dunkel:. You're misunderstanding my position on a lot of this stuff.

I'm absolutely, resolutely not in favor of routine circumcision. (As a urologist: I wouldn't circumcise any future hypothetical son of mine and would personally recommend to parents not to.) Nor have my edits represented any sort of pro-circumcision bias. The reason a lot of these articles surrounding the topic were revised were due to widespread WP: NPOV problems that don't fit in line with the goals of Wikipedia. (Such as falsely asserting that individuals who are suffer from widespread sexual dysfunction; the Canadian Urologist Association goes into a lot of these debunked claims here, which I recommend you check out.) I personally agree with your assertation that circumcision has no significant prophylactic (assuming that safe sexual practices + other guidelines are followed) benefit in developed nations. However, there's no evidence that the procedure is harmful either in terms of long-term sexual pleasure of function, and no mainstream medical organization (and arguably scientist) who would hold to that view today. (See WP: Fringe) Circumcision can still be unethical: even with that fact being the case.

This isn't a place to get into a debate about it. However, I wanted to clarify my beliefs, since you brought it up as an aspect of concern.

As for your other statements: quoting the proven circumfetishist Brian Morris That's explicitly the opposite of what I've written about his usage in the article. I stated that links from him should only be used when surveying incidence and prevalence. As I wrote about him: Biologist and pro-routine circumcision activist whose metastudies conclusions have been widely disputed. (e.g. "The benefits to risk ratio exceeds 100 to 1" for starters) Possible NPOV issues in his conclusions and WP: Fringe. Many of his current citations within the article could be replaced with citations from major, reputable medical sources. belittling Brit Shalom It doesn't meet WP: GNG. It has nothing to do with "approving" or "disapproving" it. As one of the supporters behind it, Eli Ungar-Sargon stated, in 2011: "calling it a marginal phenomenon would be generous". The subject could easily be merged into Brit Milah. Wikipedia has a normative policy against unnecessary WP: Fork's.

Therefore, I have the impression that the attempt to delete the small article about the WWDOGA is not about formal aspects of the article, about reducing the worldwide intactivism and thus the protection of children's human rights in favor of the medically not indicated foreskin amputation in children If you're stating that the article is an WP: Activism page. That's exactly an argument about why it shouldn't be kept. As mentioned before, these claims are false. Wikipedia isn't a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Promoting obscure events and then promoting them on Wikipedia because they might become hypothetically big or to use it as WP: Activism isn't how the process of article creation is supposed to work. I was in a band in high school. I really liked to be in it. It was somewhat popular on Youtube. However, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Same thing applies to this. KlayCax (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I did try and remove the references to Morris in the article (outside of prevalence figures.) But it was reverted by @Alexbrn:; it was clear that a consensus would not have formed surrounding the matter. As an editor, I can't overrule consensus/other editors without a RfC. That's not how Wikipedia works.

Naming a worldwide human rights event which has already reached its 10th year of repetition as "obscure" shows that you're constantly trying to diminish the work of human rights activists, @KlayCaxx. You are of course allowed to stay behind any anonymity which makes it hard to figure out why you are biased here. But your edits on circumcision related WP articles speak for themselves. There are many other events listed on the WP which have their own articles but they don't seem to be more relevant than this event. This WWDOGA article on WP doesn't promote the event but simply describes it like many other event articles do, e.g. the World Kidney Day, listed in the Category:Health awareness days. There have been numerous attempts to diminish the human rights violation which is done to boys by forcing a medically not indicated "circumcision" aka foreskin amputation aka genital mutilation on them. I clearly see this request to delete this article as such an attempt. The IntactiWiki describes this Wikipedia bias on circumcision. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which has already reached its 10th year of repetition as "obscure" The length of an event is irrelevant to the criteria of WP: GNG. If that was the case, a multitude of local events would meet the criteria. Naming a worldwide human rights event Again, Wikipedia articles aren't for WP: Activism or WP:SOAPBOX'ing. It's a place to chronicle notable subjects. You seem to be under the impression that one of the websites goals is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which isn't the case. (Also see WP:TEND) You are of course allowed to stay behind any anonymity which makes it hard to figure out why you are biased here. But your edits on circumcision related WP articles speak for themselves. I'm unsure why you're personally attacking/falsely alleging things against me. But none of what you have claimed so far is accurate. (For just the Morris claim, see here.)shows that you're constantly trying to diminish the work of human rights activists. How does merging this article do any of this? All it stated at the time of AfD was the following. It's not like a merger would hide or delete any piece of information. The IntactiWiki describes this Wikipedia bias on circumcision What does this have to do with the AfD? KlayCax (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You initiated an AfD (deletion) and now you're talking about merging. I can agree to merging the article into another one. And I am so tired discussing the idea that human rights violations might just be opinions. Your statements about the pros and cons of circumcision are irrelevant insofar as the topic of the WWDOGA is about medically not indicated genital mutilation of children of all sexes and genders which is illegal as a matter of law, covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and no topic for further discussion. Furthermore, no medical organization worldwide recommends medically not indicated circumcision on minors. - But if you really have no pro-circumcision bias, I appreciate that and beg your pardon. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Holding an opinion on something isn't inherently a conflict-of-interest. It's entirely possible to be a focused editor and still evaluate sources reasonably, and Klay's analysis seems entirely reasonable, even if we disagree. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 19:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seems to be a debate between Keeping and Merging
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ref stacking tells me this isn't notable. Only seems to be brief mentions in the sources given. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to MissbrauchsOpfer Gegen InternetSperren, which is the organization that promotes this. This does not appear to be a notable event, the coverage in reliable sources consists of only passing mentions, whereas the more extensive coverage is by non-notable advocacy organizations who are probably not reliable sources, but it certainly deserves a mention on the organization article, which it does not currently have. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still torn between Keep and Merge but now more than one Merge target has been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fringe protest by a fringe group. This not a comment on the content or advocacy, but rather that it's not a notable program, due to lack of significant coverage, despite its weasel word language. (A thorough search of Wikipedia user pages would discover why I endorse the idea, but not the article.) In 2002, everyone worldwide knows that we are not Facebook or Twitter. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Japonés Auxiliar de Quito[edit]

Colegio Japonés Auxiliar de Quito (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 subject does not meet WP:GNG, weak references Anon.Miller (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Japan, and Ecuador. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although small, the school has some coverage by local news outlets, seen here and here and in Japanese media here. It will take some digging, but I believe we can expand this article. PokeRegi5 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the "エクアドル＝キト補習授業校が入学式＝今年から聴講生増やす" article discusses how the student body is increasing as a trend (and not as routine news) it should absolutely count for notability. Also I can see if there are Ecuadorians willing to look at Spanish language outlets about this school. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 11 October 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, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 1 November 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alethea AI[edit]

Alethea AI (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)

AI NFT company. See WP:NCRYPTO - the sourcing in this article is to deprecated media, YouTube etc. The company fails WP:NCORP. "When establishing the notability of cryptocurrencies and other blockchain-related projects, the consensus is that crypto-centric news organizations—such as Coindesk or Bitcoin Magazine—generally cannot be used, as they do not provide coverage that can be considered "independent" from their subject for the purposes of WP:ORGCRITE. The notability of such projects must therefore be established on the basis of other sources, such as mainstream reliable news sources." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NCORP. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- seems to be not notable and without any reliable sources --Filmmaniac Tomik (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to be legit for wikipedia. However I'm not sure. --Filmmaniac Tomik (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked sock. MER-C 09:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more crypto fluff. Sources are blogs/non-RS websites, or passing mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The relevant guideline is WP:ORGCRIT. Disregarding the routine funding annoucenemtns, press releases, and cryptoblogs, there are in-depth references in VentureBeat, Fast Company, Bloomberg, and a few others. While it likely is receiving press because of Mark Cuban, it is still receiving press which meets ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article was created after some research on references and it is not based on small time references only. Real coverage is present which already satisfies Wikipedia criteria of notability. --Cisugeb (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Easily passes WP:ORGCRIT/WP:SIGCOV with the significant coverage from the sources currently cited in the article. David Gerard has done an excellent job of removing all of the Wikipedia:Citation overkill which existed at the time of nomination and leaving the quality references in the article.4meter4 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Reviewed the article after clean up; Bloomberg is pay-walled, so I can't tell how useful it is. The other two sites I'm not familiar with, they seem ok? Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to Bloomberg and the piece is good - it's about 'Mark Cuban-Backed Firm Alethea' sure enough. That both the BB and Fast Company article are about 'Mark Cuban-Backed Firm Alethea' is a little company statementy, but the content is pretty routine - Alethea "has already had some commercial success, selling one intelligent NFT, or iNFT, for $478,000 via Sotheby’s in June." and "has closed a $16 million strategic private and restricted token sale where the lead purchasers were Metapurse". So these are funding/intent announcements of a very early stage company in a very speculative field. Fast Company cites exactly the same "One of these NFTs, called “Alice,” already sold for $478,000 on Sotheby’s Natively Digital market in June." and "Cuban, along with Metapurse, Crypto.com Capital, Multicoin, Dapper Labs, and others participated in a private sale of crypto tokens in Alethea that generated $16 million." So the two pieces have to be considered tantamount to company statements. Despite the existence of sources, I still have concerns about NCORP standards of notability - in particular WP:SERIESA. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I found that if you remove the part of the Bloomberg link after the "?" then you can read the entire article. And it isn't good (for the purposes of establishing notability). The article has no "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND) in the form of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It reports that it sold one NFT via Sotheby's (and shows a tweet from Sotheby's), summarises their funding (nothing original there), and then a bunch of quotes from company execs and an upbeat view of NFTs in general. It also fails CORPDEPTH as there is no in-depth information on the company here, just summarising other news. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria. The Bloomberg piece summarises existing news and produces quotes from company execs, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The Korea IT Times is specifically about the work produced by Robert Alice in collaboration with the topic company and includes general information on how an iNFT can be made seem "intelligent" through the use of GPT-3. It has no in-depth information about the company which is what is required seeing as this topic is the company, not the artwork, fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The FastCompany article also relies on information provided by the company and the journalist describes how "Noah's Ark" site imbues an NFT with a "soul". It does not provide any in-depth nor significant "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Finally, the TechInAsia article is very like the Bloomberg article (and only 2 days apart) in that it mentions the Sotheby's sale, summarises the company funding includes a quote from the company exec. It also has no in-depth significant "Independent Content", fails CORPDEPTH and ORDING. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's not enough to cite sources, we need to use those sources to explain to readers why this topic is encyclopedically significant. The point is not to prove that this project exists in the vaguest possible terms, our goal is to write a neutral encyclopedia article about it. Right now, the article merely regurgitates a bunch of pathetically generic cryptocurrency buzzwords. It is not clear what this company actually does, nor why anyone should care. Notability cannot even be evaluated until these sources are properly summarized. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not indicated by the sourcing per HighKing. We need to exercise extreme caution with crypto-related enterprises, and the tone and scope of the provided articles do not come close to convincing me. Ovinus (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) and WP:SIGCOV. If, outside of articles in the insular trade websites and insider newsletters, there's been a single news article about a crypto thing, then it's not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 1 November 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 Practical theology. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theology of relational care[edit]

Theology of relational 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)

In 2013, this article was proposed for deletion and no consensus was reached. I'd like to re-open that discussion. Instead of simply deleting it, I think we ought to redirect this page to Practical theology, where there exists a comment on this particular topic. Although "relational care" in the general sense of "extending care through personal relationships" is an abstractly important idea, this article does not name a discrete concept or set of practices that is notable in itself. The phrase "theology of relational care" does not occur with any frequency in the popular or scholarly conversation. (A search for the phrase on the ATLA Religion Database, the most prominent database of scholarly literature on religion, returns zero results; and a search for the phrase on Google returns nothing but a few passing mentions.) Brian (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Further specifics: the ATLA Religion Database returns no hits for the full phrase; it returns three hits (with a few derivatives) for the broader phrase, "relational care." Of those three sources, one book and one article are plausibly concerned with a "theology of relational care," but have nothing clear to do with each another; the third is a book that doesn't deal with theology at all. Another book using the phrase pops up on Amazon that also doesn't deal with theology. The one place the full phrase appears in a non-trivial way is in a masters thesis, which is a decent source, but not enough to secure the clarity or notability of the concept. A Google search for the phrase turns up very nearly nothing—just some spam websites and a couple of trivial mentions.Brian (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support the re-direct to Practical Theology.Swampyank (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There doesn't seem to be enough to back this up as a significant topic of theological discussion under this name. I don't think there's enough even to justify a redirect. Jahaza (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Practical theology. Superficially, Pastoral theology sounds as if it would have been an appropriate merge target, but that is entirely a Catholic article, whereas the subject here ought not to be denominationally focused. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a couple more sentences to the mention at Practical theology and then redirect. Not enough content and coverage for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Changing to Redirect as the selective merge has taken place Atlantic306 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have integrated a few sentences from the theology of relational care article into the pastoral theology article. Atlantic306, does that suffice to make your recommendation a redirect? —Brian (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I now support redirect, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egy-Tech Engineering[edit]

Egy-Tech Engineering (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)

Borderline A7, but has existed for a long time. No indication of notabilty, neither a BEFORE nor the Arabic article identify sourcing to make a case for N:CORP. Star Mississippi 17:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Egypt. Star Mississippi 17:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found another source from 2017 ^[1] that suggests they build a prototype but also says "The car, however, is yet to roam the streets of Egypt, as it awaits permission from authorities. But the vehicle’s creators are confident of soon eliminating elements which hinder the official launching the vehicle."2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:B962:E243:E9D5:AA9D (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. If there's been a single reliable source, that does not count as significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Ida Thornton[edit]

Donna Ida Thornton (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)

Self-styled 'Jean Queen', a statement placed in press via interviews, releases and company statements. This article is a (declared, to be fair) paid placement and shows it - sourcing is purely to non-RS (HuffPo, blogs etc), to company statements and interviews. If an announcement that you've bought a hotel with your husband in 'The Caterer' is your best shot at RS, you're in trouble. It's not good enough to pass WP:GNG and needs to go, pronto. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, United Arab Emirates, and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Huffington Post is a RS (although I tend to avoid it purely because they closed the Canadian version right after they unionized...), but what's used for the article here is a contributor's bio. British Vogue is either her giving an interview or used as a "taking head/subject matter expert" in an article about jeans. She seems to have a ton of coverage, but nothing found for GNG, yet. I feel like it's there, somewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete I've been through 18 pages of Google search and all it has is fashion advice on how to wear jeans or leather after 50 or similar vapid articles. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC, search results are not all "fashion advice on how to wear jeans or leather after 50 or similar vapid articles", and notability is not based on subjective preference. There are sources over time that support her notability, e.g. Donna Ida's New Direction (Vogue, 2017, interview with secondary context), Interview, Fashion: Donna Ida Thornton (The Scotsman, 2017, includes secondary context, including career and biographical info), She Wears It Well: Jean genie Donna Ida Thornton on how to make denim work for every occasion (The Telegraph, 2017, includes secondary commentary about her), Is The Low-Rise Jean Back? (British Vogue, 2014, includes secondary context related to her collection), Into the fray: jeans and the no-hem-hemline (Guardian, 2016, quoted for opinion), How to wear leggings the grownup way (Guardian, 2015, quoted for opinion). Beccaynr (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Marginal, but agree with Beccaynr that the page passes WP:BASIC. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Like it or not, she is an expert on jeans and wearing jeans. There are enough articles with her advice on wearing jeans to meet WP:GNG. There is also enough coverage of the changes in her brand over time to meet the (WP:BASIC) notability requirements of Wikipedia. ~~~~
  • Somehow the signature was lost there. Let me try again DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Beccanyr. Deus et lex (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namrita Malla[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Sources are all about photos of herself, with minimal biographical information; I wouldn't consider them significant coverage. Ovinus (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India. Ovinus (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sexy photos and she discusses bathing suits and the like, typical tabloid stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - besides, as noted above, failing WP:SIGCOV, she has acted in exactly one marginally notable film. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 1 November 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 Weather of 2022. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022 Paysandú Derecho[edit]

July 2022 Paysandú Derecho (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 a derecho. A derecho is a extremely long tracked storm event, not an event to hit a single city. Both references seem to have been cited as if they were in English, but they are both in Spanish and google translated versions of both references do not mention “derecho” ever. As it is not a derecho, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NWEATHER needs to be discussed as it may not be notable for a stand-alone article, but rather a section only in Weather of 2022. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do specific squalls have their own wikipedia articles? That's what I wanna know here. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I’m aware of. Outside the United States is a different story, but squall lines are extremely common in the United States, so there hasn’t really been a need to create an article for a list of squall lines. Based on the references, it looks like the event itself has notability for a decent mention in the Weather of 2022 timeline, but that is probably about it. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know. I'm learning. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG, or merge as suggested. They lived. If this were an airline accident, or a crime, it would be speedily deleted. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slowcoaster[edit]

Slowcoaster (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)

Very little evidence of significance let alone notability. The few sources that can still be found are local and do not convey notability. Several sources are dead and could not be traced in the internet archive. New searches found nothing that had not already been listed. Article was created in 2006 by an SPA which also gives concern about COI. Fails WP:BAND by a very wide margin  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, surprisingly. Since the strongest notability claims here (ECMAs, rotation on Much Music) are almost 20 years old, I ran a ProQuest search since 20-year-old sourcing wouldn't be expected to Google well, and found considerably more quality in-depth coverage of them than I was expecting for a band I've never personally heard of. Gimme an hour or two to fix the article, and Bob'll be your uncle. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did the dirty deed. Article now cites 14 sources, from a variety of media outlets not at all limited to Cape Breton Island or even Nova Scotia. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources coverage references Atlantic306 (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements by Bearcat. Suonii180 (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources and additions (courtesy of Bearcat). Band clearly meets GNG (and GNG is basically just rehashed in NBAND 1). Samsmachado (talk) 02:20, 1 November 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!} 08:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corentin Lemaire[edit]

Corentin Lemaire (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 amateur footballer (although he previously played 16 minutes of a Coupe de France match) which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English and France-language coverage is trivial, such as interviews with the subject, transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG IMO, see article here.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid that's an interview with the subject of this article, and there is literally zero independent commentary that could count towards meeting the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. I don't see anything wrong with the interview - but it's not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. BilletsMauves^€500 19:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure Q&A interviews obviously do not contribute to GNG, and nothing else is turning up on a search. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 27 October 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. The substantiveness of the provided sources has been convincingly refuted. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Matore[edit]

Prince Matore (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 former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English and Polish-language coverage is trivial, such as transfer/firing announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Zimbabwe. Skynxnex (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG IMO with articles such as this, and and this.

  I'm afraid the first link is an interview from his former employer (not typically viewed as independent of the subject) and the second is a just a single name-drop (the only thing the article says about him is that he played for Radomiak Radom in 1995 - that's it). Neither counts towards meeting the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Gol24 source good, but not sufficient on its own. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, he has a quite prolonged career in management. Though being assistant to Joey Antipas, Matore has got attention for managing Chicken Inn to its first league title and subsequently being signed to coach in the far more wealthy South African league. News coverage include both significant and passing mentions which is a lot to dig through. This is one of the better ones. Geschichte (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While the B-Metro source is slightly better than the usual crud offered (Q&A interview from the guy's own team, a single namedrop), it's entirely on either the coaching pair (or trio) or the club itself, there is nothing independent whatsoever that is directly about Matore. JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Geschichte and other users. I found 4 amount many many more spurces. In addition, he deifiently has additional offline coverage, having been a international capped player with extensive fully pro Polish tip flight and Zimbabwe top flight career in 1990s-early 2000s. Clearly is significant figure in Zimbabwean football in management and playing career with ongoing coach career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That article has one sentence on Matore, the rest of it is direct quotes from him from what is clearly a press conference and a couple sentences on the team with no mention of Matore. As has been explained to you at least a dozen times, such sources do not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 21:22, 29 October 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. Arguing to keep based on sources that may come into existence in the future is weak. If such sources are written, the article can always be recreated. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Oved[edit]

Darren Oved (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)

Lawyer, fails WP:GNG; WP:NORG, WP:NOTCV. Routine coverage of cases, article is very much a CV and there is no notability in sources or elsewhere. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Business, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If Mr. Oved had a wikipedia page before the Hans Niemann lawsuit, then probably it should be KEEP just on the basis that it's a weak page but not offensively so.

  If this page was created in anticipation or in the shadow of the Niemann lawsuit (this is a world-wide news story arising from the world of professional chess), then DELETE. The person does not appear to be of any significance, and should not be using Wikipedia in such an opportunistic manner. Jdxcrow (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "lawyer to the stars" isn't a reason to have an article, most are name drops or just cases he's worked on. I'd expect a lawyer to win cases, nothing terribly notable about any of them. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Various WP:RS mention that he certainly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Check his list of highly notable clients: Cat Cora, Alex Sapir (the son of Tamir Sapir), Tiësto and Rebecca Minkoff, Zinedine Zidane, Christian Vieri, Paolo Maldini, and Andriy Shevchenko, and they are not quite non-notable cases that were not won. Clearly a notable attorney who has enough notability for Wikipedia. Snowseven (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having clients is what lawyers do. We need to see why these cases are notable or he's just another joe doing his job. Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Oved is now a major player in a large lawsuit as part of the Carlsen-Niemann controversy, which may result in an increase in the number of sources that mention him. Whether those sources provide SIGCOV remains to be seen. AviationFreak💬 13:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Current sources are weak, but that seems to be changing. Another Q is whether this should be an article about the person(s) or the firm. – SJ + 05:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The author of the page does seem to be a SPA promoting the subject.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - first, substantively, he's just not notable as a lawyer; see User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability. He's been a licensed lawyer for less time than me. He's represented lots of notable (albeit not famous) people. I don't list all my notable clients, but if you wish, I'd be glad to drop some names, with clients' permission of course. Representing notable people or organizations, or suing notable businesses, does not make a lawyer automatically notable by extension. Secondly, I am strongly opposed to autobiographies on Wikipedia. In 2007, that could have been excused, but in 2022, it's untenable to try to sneak in a social media page masquerading as an encyclopedia article. To be blunt, it's theft of our services, and mis-use of a charity's resources. Thirdly, the combination of the two would be in violation of several rules of professional ethics. Tagging DGG. Destroy any remnant of the article and ban all the users who contributed to this mess. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Steup[edit]

John Steup (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 it stands now, it looks like a link farm filled resume. A check of sources does not show indication of passing General Notability Guidelines or WP:NBIO and this subject seems to be more or less a run of the mill general populace. A steady pageview average of under about five views per day for the past seven years suggests the lack of notability even though view count is not a specific guideline criteria. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under A7 and G11 (the article seems like it mostly exists as a resume and list of external links). Having worked for a notable employer doesn't establish notability on its own and the article makes no other claims its subject is notable. I found absolutely no online coverage of this specific John Steup besides socials (Twitter, Linkedin) and content mirrors. No news mentions I could find. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or speedy delete per policy) for violating WP:NOTRESUME and WP:NOTPROMOTION, while making no statement of notability either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater 19:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I feel like I must repeat myself: first, substantively, he's just not notable; music executives are dime a dozen. Secondly, I am strongly opposed to autobiographies on Wikipedia. In 2007, that could have been excused, but in 2022, it's untenable to try to sneak in a social media page masquerading as an encyclopedia article. To be blunt, it's theft of our services. Tagging DGG. Salt, burn, TNT, ban, etc. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Wikipedia is not a resume service. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Aiello[edit]

Josie Aiello (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)

Falls short of WP:ENT, no sigcov found. At most, found in passing mention. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article, being on WP for more than seven years, was having no problems at all, until the above editor came along (Broadway biased obviously, and most likely following my edits of today). So keep it then. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not previously know you edited this article today, and above is a personal attack of which I've stricken out. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks, InvadingInvader (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies if you think that was an attack, but at the same time, that was an attack on me, in accordance to the rest of what I stated above. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD nominations aren't personal attacks nor are they intended to be. Read Help:My article got nominated for deletion!, and focus more so on the article rather than the nomination. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You got it! Now, you do the same, no more attacks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while her site isn't usable, any leads on the Billboard article she references on her site? That could help with GNG as she doesn't currently appear to meet N:MUSIC as it's currently written. Star Mississippi 00:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: Okay, since I like you as a person, go ahead and have it deleted then. I saved what I wanted from it on my page. No hard feelings. Have a nice night! Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Discographer. Sorry, I should be more clear. There's a route to potential notability via GNG/WP:BIO. I can't find the Billboard article, which is why I haven't cast a vote in either direction, but we have time to find it. Alternatively, I'm happy to move this to your draft space if you want to work on it. I think N:MUSIC has changed since you wrote this, I don't at all think you spent time writing about someone you didn't think was notable. Star Mississippi 01:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi:, Thanks, it's okay though, I probably wouldn't be getting back to it anyway. Her claim to fame are her songs from the 1987 U.S. version of the Starlight Express concept album, that's pretty much it. Thanks anyway though. Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article does seem to have potential...see WP:HEY. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree there's potential. That's why I wanted to find the Billboard article. If you feel so as nominator, this doesn't need to run seven days and you can withdraw it @InvadingInvader Star Mississippi 21:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see if editors think that this should be returned to draftspace or improved in main space. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Personally I think the benefits of draftifying a seven year old article are slim. It can either be improved in mainspace, or will likely just expire in six months. Based on what @Cielquiparle has added, my opinion is that improvement in mainspace will be sufficiently productive. But that's just me as an editor, not as an admin. Star Mississippi 00:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done now. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BASIC. Expanded with several independent, reliable sources and layered in details from existing ones, but in terms of SIGCOV, would point to the 1978 Chicago Tribune feature ("Josie Aiello gives diners a side order of Streisand") and the 2000 Los Angeles Times pop scene column which gave her three paragraphs in the "Out and About" section and said she had a "Richter scale voice". Cielquiparle (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BASIC - there is secondary context and commentary about her career in independent and reliable coverage over time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HEY. No objections to it. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) BangJan1999 16:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Cheng[edit]

Lily Cheng (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 meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. BangJan1999 20:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Canada. BangJan1999 20:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's true that the article was created in an inadequate form — basically "Lily Cheng is a city councillor who exists, the end" — by an occasional editor who's made less than 100 Wikipedia edits in the entire last six years combined, but it is entirely improvable. Toronto is a global city whose city councillors are considered to pass WP:NPOL #2 as long as there's some actual substance and proper reliable sourcing in the article, and sourcing does exist to upgrade it with. With just 20 minutes of work on it, I've already upgraded it significantly. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per MOS:Canada#Municipal politics members of Toronto City Council are automatically considered notable by virtue of position.

"City councillors are deemed notable just for being city councillors only in "major metropolitan cities"; in the Canadian context, present consensus has applied this only to Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal." —WildComet ^talk 02:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above and Bearcat showing it can be an article. Skynxnex (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Article looks a lot better than before, therefor I'll withdraw my nomination. BangJan1999 16:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Divine (group)[edit]

Divine (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)

Non-notable band. There is only one source listed and it is questionable. Riftynush (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:BAND #1, 2, and 3. Coverage of the group in Stereogum and Billboard and elsewhere (see Lately_(Divine_song)#Reception).-KH-1 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per KH-1. WP:BAND criterion #2 requires only that an artist have "had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Divine passes this test with flying colors; they had a #1 single on the Billboard Hot 100, the main music chart in the U.S. And that single was certified platinum, too, which exceeds criterion #3: "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - see WP:BIGNUMBER. Who’s to say that having a #1 hit on a chart automatically makes you notable. Per WP:GNG, a subject requires MULTIPLE sources, and this has just one. And since it has just one, this article must be deleted unless someone finds at least one other source before this discussion expires. Riftynush (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although no real objection if artist/album articles are merged. Coverage appears in Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Billboard, The Boston Globe, Journal Star, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As mentioned, meets WP:BAND. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - easily meets NBAND. One-hit wonder. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 1 November 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 Sahg. Discarding the "keep" votes which aren't policy-based. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 21:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Born Demon[edit]

Born Demon (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)

Album that fails WP:NALBUM UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think it's a good article about an album that represents doom metal. Usually these albums do not chart or are as notable as pop music. ? User:Chavitico (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chavitico (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

  Usually, albums that don't meet WP:NALBUM, such as this one, are WP:BLARed towards the article about the performer. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ...And no, the claim that "Usually these albums do not chart or are as notable as pop music." is misleading as any pop music album article should be WP:BLARed or deleted if it has similar notability issues as this article. WP:NALBUM doesn't discriminate by genre. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Well, I'd give the article a chance. If it were that extreme, then all of this band's albums would have to be deleted because "they're not noteworthy or they don't chart." It's an underground Norwegian band, it has a small audience but it exists! This album is a sample of his work, obviously. --Apega71 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITEXISTS. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like WP:BEANS to me, in addition to wondering if the band's article Sahg should be investigated per WP:NBAND. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    From my understanding though, the band's article would probably pass WP:NBAND since the band includes/included notable members who are notable for other ventures. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sahg per WP:NALBUM as a {{R from album}}. Nothing proven this far shows this subject to be notable. Wikipedia isn't the doom metal or Sahg Fandom/Wikia site: Notability requirements here are for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sahg - per myself, Sam_Sailor and Onel5969 - all of whom have previously redirected the article as an alternative to deletion. Alternatively, given the quality of the Sahg article and its current clear failure of WP:GNG, I'd delete the lot. BTW, the concept that "the band includes/included notable members who are notable for other ventures" is specifically dealt with in guidelines - notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding Sahg, WP:NBAND point 6 seems to contradict the WP:NOTINHERITED claim, so I'd imagine there's room for debate there. Either way though, I do agree that it would be difficult to present a case to rationalize the existence of an article about a band with no notable songs or albums, regardless who is in the band. Steel1943 (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the band article would probably just about pass notability – they appear to have been mentioned in various Norwegian newspapers, although as they are all behind a paywall I can't tell if they are just passing mentions. And their albums have certainly been reviewed in at least one established European metal magazine: [11], [12], [13]. But that's another debate. As for this particular album, I'm holding off on a decision as it's been out less than a week and there is still time for reviews and other articles about it to be published. Richard3120 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I totally agree with this great opinion. It is an album of a relatively remarkable band (at least in Norway) and all their albums appear in specialized metal music publications. I hold my position, article deserves the opportunity to be preserved. User: Chavitico (Talk) 17:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Excuse me User talk:Richard3120 for that opinion (and for purposes of debate and consensus) do you say that the article deserves to be left (kkeep)?--Apega71 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, WP:NOTAVOTE. That, and I don't know how their opinion could be construed in any way other than a "neutral". Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition, it's odd how two editors just made the same mistake with linking a user name. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Apega71: categorically, no. See WP:NALBUM – "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." The fact that I think the band may pass WP:NBAND does not mean that this album is automatically notable, we need multiple reliable sources about the album itself. Richard3120 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this is quite an interesting debate and thank you for being a part of it. I stand by my position that both Sahg and this álbum Born Demon are of interest for the reasons stated above. Especially the band, it is notable for some members who have made headlines in Norway for their musical work. So it would be unfortunate to redirect (and thus disappear, as it seems to be) this new album. But it is the decision of the majority in the end.--Apega71 (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It is unclear what "of interest" refers to. Sahg consists of members who are apparently notable for other works, so the existence of that article is debatable, but per WP:NALBUM, WP:GNG, etc., it seems quite clear that Born Demon existing as an article in an encyclopedia is not plausible due to not meeting the established notability guidelines. Also, if you intended to address or rebuke any of the "redirect to Sahg" comments above, you did not; all you did was state your point of view without enforcing reasons why your point of view is compatible with Wikipedia permitting Born Demon existing in its current state per Wikipedia's established guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, see WP:NOTAVOTE; consensus is determined by the weight of the arguments, not a majority of the vote. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What happens is that before the application of the rules of notability of an article in Wikipedia, there are not many arguments to debate. I would suggest the creator of this article include it as part of a section of the main Sahg band article.--Apega71 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sahg. Except for a one-paragraph, debatably SIGCOV review from Decibel, which is RS per WP:A/S, the rest is a combination of poor Wordpress blogs or non-SIGCOV routine announcements (including the band's own official non-SIGCOV, non-independent announcement). My WP:BEFORE search found no more refs plausibly contributing to notability. Therefore, this fails WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM and should be redirected. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sahg. Fails WP:NALBUM per above arguments. A notable band does not make this album notable. SBKSPP (talk) 05:14, 29 October 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!} 21:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trioba 2+1[edit]

Trioba 2+1 (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 concept car project that was never produced with a lot of outdated WP:CRYSTAL content. There is one source (https://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2008/03/03-trioba-21-concept/) but even with it I think that this was mostly just a hypothetical car design project that doesn't really warrant an article on Wikipedia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, and India. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only sources are car blogs and similar sites, many links to the paw paw fruit when googling it for some reason. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Not notable, can't find any sources in Google. Contributor008 (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG. Has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources as far as I can see. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:07, 30 October 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If We Shout Loud Enough[edit]

If We Shout Loud Enough (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)

Little established notability and little significant coverage; doubt it passes the notability guideline for films. It didn't win any awards nor become a box office success/bomb. Only sources present in the article are the film festival catalogue and an interview with one of the members of Double Dagger; interviews on their own don't establish notability without significant supplementary coverage. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and Maryland. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 20:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It got a couple of basic release notices but no reliable reviews or other coverage, and now is only visible in the usual directories like IMDb. No evidence that it passes any of the requirements at WP:NFILM. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:08, 28 October 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fok (3rd nomination)[edit]

Anthony Fok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD |

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

The page fails WP:GNG and was created and recreated by a sockpuppet User:ZanciD.

Suitskvarts (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Fok and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Fok (2nd nomination), which the nominator appears not to have addressed other than a WP:VAGUEWAVE at GNG. Ineligible for blocked-sock deletion because the block happened only two weeks ago and the article was created last March; that criterion only works for articles created by someone evading existing blocks at the time of article creation. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It may surprise you, but I've looked at sources and read previous discussions. I don't see 3 independent sources required by GNG, do you? Suitskvarts (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a recommendation, not a hard and fast rule. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you had read the 1st AfD you would have seen my comment there "Straits Times, CNBC, and BBC are all major media from different countries, and while the Straits Times coverage of him is not very deep, I think the CNBC and BBC sources have enough depth of coverage to count." I also don't see a requirement for three sources in GNG, and I don't understand where you think this is a requirement. It says "multiple sources". Two is multiple. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was so accustomed to being usually required to have 3 sources that I considered it a strict rule. Apparently it isn't, but I don't see 2 here either:

  Straits Times - just meantioned him as one of many members of The SDSC board.

  CNBC - a few paragraphs, and almost half of that text is a direct quote. This is a WP:PRIMARY, like any interview, but we need a secondary source, right?

  BBC Worklife - this is a side project like a blog about professions. Over the years a lot of people have been told there. I don't think they all deserve a personal Wiki page. Suitskvarts (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your opinions about BBC are irrelevant for whether it is in-depth, reliable, and independent. Your comment about whether people "deserve" an article suggests that you have a completely wrongheaded idea about how notability is achieved. We could measure notability by significance of accomplishments, and for a few subject-specific criteria like WP:NPOL we do, but WP:GNG-based notability is not about achievements, it is purely about the existence of in-depth independent sources. As for CNBC [14], it is a news story like any other. It is secondary, not primary, but GNG does not make that distinction; the thing you need to check instead is whether the author and publisher of the story are independent of Fok, and they are. It includes quotes by Fok that do not contribute to its depth of coverage of him, but it also includes multiple paragraphs of material including quotes by other people that are entirely about Fok. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  On the Straits Times source, there are three in the current revision:

  1. On SDSC. This was added only last night by me after I was inadvertently pinged by Suitskvarts. Definitely not GNG, but merely providing an update to his professional life.
  2. [15], and [16] were present at the time of this AfD written. The first is about him and few other tutors setting up a trade association for private tutors, while the second is a defamation suit against another tutor. The in-depth coverage of him varied, but all in all are indepedent and either writing at length or just simply quoting him.

  [17] wasn't really Straits Times as TNP was a separate paper before going wholly digital and being merged into Straits Times due to financial issues (see SPH Media). – robertsky (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per previously discussed, "well covered by various sources internationally". Nom does not present arguments different from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Fok, which was well-attended, except for the blocked-sock deletion. However, as mentioned by David Eppstein above, blocked-sock deletion isn't eligible in this case. Furthermore, more than half of the article had been rewritten/refactored by other editors after the tug-of-war draftification. Side note: personally, I feel that citing local newspaper articles alone for Singapore-related topics may not be sufficient as the same newspapers report on matters concerning all levels of society. However, I am comfortable if there are international newspapers writing articles about him or through him, his profession. – robertsky (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the more famous private tutors out there. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article updated with an online source, and two offline sources from Singapore's National Library Board, which I can give privately via email if needed. Online and 1 offline article added are full article coverage of BLP while remaining offline article is minor source for information. Passes GNG. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 08:33, 1 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 WhatsApp Outage[edit]

2022 WhatsApp Outage (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)

Applications have outages all the time. This is not notable enough for a standalone article. Andise1 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 2021 Facebook outage is notable and a standalone article so why this outage is not notable? 2022 WhatsApp Outage is the second outage of WhatsApp so why first outage is notable and second is not? Contributor008 (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Contributor008 Other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the notability of 2021 outage was discussed at it's own AfD. – robertsky (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outages happen all the time and are only notable if in the case of the 2021 Facebook outage, where that happened for a very long time across multiple services XxLuckyCxX (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for a very long time 6-7 hours?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Minute trivia in the overall story of the platform, never mind its lack of meaningful impact on the wider world. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Websites. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) ^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a two hour outage is nothing serious. wp:ROUTINE; compare to the Rogers outage in Canada that left people without internet for 3 days and great parts of the country. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly not notable per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTS, only lasted for about 2 hours. Facebook outage, as said above, was longer and affected multiple services. echidnaLives - talk - edits 22:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete outages happen regularly across all tech. Probably not even worth mentioning in the main WhatsApp article. Stephen 22:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Super minor, no major impact. CR-1-AB (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS applies. Ovinus (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No clear appreciable impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Vida0007 (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Many of these outages are worth covering in Wikipedia, but probably just as a line or paragraph in a larger article. MarioGom (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, seems to be a minor event. Only claim that it's notable in the article is that it's the longest outage of WhatsApp ever, which while it does appear to be stated by one sources, is also evidently untrue given 2021 Facebook outage lasted more than twice as long. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While it is well covered by news media, an outage is perfectly common. No need to create articles for every outage of major applications. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. Feels like WP:SNOW here. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:48, 29 October 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Spencer[edit]

Glenn Spencer (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 purveyor of hate. AfD closed as "keep" in 2009 but I think our standards for determining notability have improved since then. Most keep votes were not policy-based. Sources present in the article are passing mentions, hardly the in-depth coverage we look for. Being noted as a purveyor of hate by ADL and SPLC is not sufficient grounds for notability. I found nothing on Newspapers.com and the Google News link found by Bearian is broken and I cannot find anything that it could be. It's not helped by the presence of other "Glenn Spencers". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In 2009, our standards for what was reliable or deprecated, and for significant coverage have changed radically. 13 years ago I supported keeping this BLP, but now in 2022, I think our standards have become strict enough that deletion is necessary. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ditto the nominator's rationale. Falls short of WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:50, 1 November 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. It would have been easier for a closer if these pages had been presented as a bundled nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility[edit]

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility (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 am nominating all subpages of List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility -- i.e. the full list split over 20 different pages. I do not see evidence that the pages meet WP:LISTN -- I cannot find books or scholarship that discuss the development of nicknames in European royalty as a whole. Obviously individual nicknames are often notable, but I do not see discussion of this topic "as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This is currently an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, badly sourced and nearly impossible to manage. It's unclear what the WP:LISTCRITERIA are: what nicknames are notable enough to make it? And given the timeframe and lack of full sourcing involved that will be an almost impossible standard to set: the level of sourcing available for each nickname will vary wildly by how much scholarship there is for each individual/how old they are.

The largest pages are generally less than 50% sourced (A: 346 footnotes for 800+ entries, C: 292/700+, E: 212/500+, F: 198/~400, H: 199/~550, J: 278/550+, L: 209/500+). The only other option is to do a huge cut of these pages down to only sourced nicknames, but frankly I don't think that's worth the effort. Any truly notable nicknames can be listed on the person's page, which is the first place the reader will go to find information about that person--not a barely viewed list page. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Lists, and Europe. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Besides being largely unsourced, there's no reason why these many thousands of people should have their nicknames lumped together. They may belong on respective individuals' articles, but there's nothing saying why listing them in this way isn't indisriminate. Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. I agree with all that Reywas92 says. This is a completely trivial and pointless list. Athel cb (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. This has been a long time coming, for all the reasons mentioned by the nom and by me here. JoelleJay (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And for a taste of what it's like trying to work with the article creator, here's their response to my comment. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per above and per my comments at the user talk section JoelleJay linked above, which I see have not been addressed in the slightest. Fails WP:V/WP:OR spectacularly. eviolite (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic topic. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran Church in the Philippines[edit]

Lutheran Church in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article doesn't meet any notability criteria. If I was just mistaken, please state here below. If not, then please vote Delete Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 14:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There appear to be sources, although I can't access most of them online. The following is just from the first page of Google Books:

An Analysis of Clericalism in Some Philippine Church Bodies as an Obstacle to Lay Activity in the Lutheran Church in the Philippines

History of a Half a Century of Lutheran Mission in the Republic of the Philippines

The Encyclopedia of Christianity

And there are plenty more, I just can't be bothered linking them. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ficaia. Not all the references provide significant coverage, but some do, and I have started adding some to the article. It looks like WP:BEFORE was not done in this instance. StAnselm (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a denomination, not a mere local church; perhaps 100 congregations. The history is cited from a denominational webpage, but this cites its sources as published books, making it a reliable source. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As how I see it going, I realized I was mistaken, It was just a stub. I also forgot how all Denominations are considered as notable. I'm really sorry, I Withdraw my nomination for this article for deletion. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 01:21, 26 October 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 23:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdcore Medical[edit]

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

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

The topic of this article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. IndyNotes (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 11 October 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 14:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is promotional, and there's not a lot out there about this company other than PR. But if someday the company's approach is studied a little more by the medical community and there are some academic publications that case study it, there could be an article on that basis. FalconK (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete PR releases and a few blogs, nothing else covering the company. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 25 October 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!} 08:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Strategic Dialogue[edit]

Institute for Strategic Dialogue (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)

Reads like advert; zero reliable sources. Only blogs, passing WP:MILL mentions and many unreferenced statements. Created by a single purpose account. Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to modify this page to align with Wikipedia guidelines (including reliable sources and references). zahed (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted immediately! It is vital to our democracy to allow corporate billionaires and deep state government tyrants running the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, to continue to operate in secret beyond the prying eyes of peasants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.145.163 (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "peasantry" will determine notability according to guidelines, honorable comrade. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, wouldn't you want to have objective information about this organisation in Wikipedia for all to see? If there are issues to be raised that can be cited per Wikipedia guidelines, please add them. I've only attempted to fix an article that has been neglected (and improperly formatted) for years. I am happy to leave further building of the article for others also. zahed (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So that's one vote for delete then? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's clear to me that this article is of very low quality (essentially a piece of marketing copy for a political organization), but it seems plausible to me that it nevertheless meets notability guidelines and something reasonable could be salvaged from what we have. I will try to remember to take a look later. jp×g 23:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The community of editors should be aware of the very important recent report of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue: «Information Warfare and Wikipedia». --Perohanych (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and I think all of these concerns should apply to this entry for ISD as well. I've disclosed my conflict of interest and have tried to ensure that all citations are notable and credible. But I had to update this entry as it was scheduled for deletion and no one else seemed willing to update this entry to suit Wikipedia guidelines.

  As you can see from the report, the Institute is very aware of the importance of Wikipedia and how it can be manipulated by extremists and state actors. I implore other editors to please review the text currently on the ISD entry, correct it, or add to it as appropriate (even including documented controversies or criticism if you can find it). I am not doing this on instruction of the Institute, but as a longtime Wikipedia user who feels that the organisation is notable and worthy of inclusion. Please let me know if there is any other information I can provide. zahed (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep combines several sources into a decently-sourced article; most aren't about the Organization, but can be used to support GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: There seems to be some RS coverage, and it's not clear that there was a WP:BEFORE check. It just needs cleanup. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs some cleaning up for sure but it has enough sources to establish notability. It should be noted that in cases like this we should be flexible. Think tanks and academic institutes don't always have a lot of coverage that is directly about them. But the work they do is notable even if it's passing or primary works. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:22, 26 October 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 MOR Entertainment#Final MOR stations. And this redirect will receive a small amount of protection so this decision isn't immediately reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DXFH[edit]

DXFH (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 has been restored multiple times as redirect, fails WP:BCAST and WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to its original as an WP:ATD, considering WP:PROTECT to avoid any further restorations again. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 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 14:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurogane (company)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable company, their main website is dead, and I did not find any reputable sources. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is written poorly. No significant coverage found. Does not meet WP:COMPANY Fifthapril (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete working on a Wii game eh? That's at least 3 console generations ago (maybe two), so this is terribly out of date. No sources found, dead website, delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 16:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not satisfy the notability requirement for companies. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No sources or indication of notability. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 29 October 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 per WP:SNOW. Because Draft:ORDO Store had already been declined, and then rejected, a copy of it in main space should have been merged back over draft so that it could be improved and eventually accepted for submission. The draft still exists. The reviewer who rejected it could be contacted to reconsider if there is potential for improving it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ORDO Store[edit]

ORDO Store (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)

ORDO Store

This article was declined in Articles for Creation, and then moved into article space, and moved back into draft space as not ready for article space, but a copy has been created in article space anyway. This article does not satisfy WP:NCORP. It has been reference-bombed, and the references have not been analyzed in depth for significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Albania. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This one is so obviously far from Wikipedia's standards that a discussion for deletion should not be held. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just an ad, no reason for it to be here. Jhhillman (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete my personal favorite ref is "Government document". Rest are listings, their own website/blog and various passing mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I did notify the article author. They deleted the AFD notice from their talk page, which is their privilege and indicates that they have seen it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentHello everyone. I hope you are very good. I am so glad to be here and this is wonderful to be here. I am so sorry about all this noise I have made with these writings but I just have tried to do all my best. This is my second article I did and this is all about not to doing right. This is a company in my country and I have nothing to do with it, also I have nothing to do about it in paid article. I just registered on Wikipedia and I loved this place here. That is all about it. I tried to see many videos about how to write an article in the perfect way so I tried to. All of them said "you need many references" so I tried to find a lot of. I hope will not do anything wrong if I will try to add something else about Albanian interests. Sorry again for everything I did wrong Nrt0011 (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nrt0011 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Nrt0011, no new editor gets everything right with their first few articles. Take this AFD as a learning experience. Listen to what experienced editors identify as problems which will help you avoid these problems in the future. It's not about getting things perfect, it's about improving as an editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• owner of the business - hello everyone. i am rubin qatja. i am the brother of one of the owners of this business. this business is working and already everything presented here is right. i dont know to talk about wikipedia rules and so, but i know that this is real business and i am ready to present any kind of documents if needed. i am so happy you added this business here. i want this business to be here not because of any marketing or something like this some editors told me. if this business is here or it is not here there is zero marketing on it and we will not earn more money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gru088 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Gru088 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

@Gru088: Your business is not entitled to have an article on Wikipedia just because it exists. Only companies that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria are considered worthy of inclusion. An article about a non-notable business will be considered promotional and subject to deletion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as entirely a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL organisation. Not everything or everyone that exists merits a Wikipedia article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP no in-depth significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to show special notability as a company. While the company obviously existed, it has not shown enough notability for a standalone article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:24, 28 October 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!} 21:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John DenBoer[edit]

John DenBoer (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 do not think that either WP:BIO or WP:PROF are met. The only reliable source cited in the current article that provides biographical information is this in Newsweek. This from the Phoenix Business Journal has some information about his company, but little biographical content. The rest are unreliable e.g. WP:FORBESCON or primary. I have searched myself but not been able to find any better sources. SmartSE (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong KEEP - There is enough coverage about subject to meet WP:GNG. VentureBeat is reliable source. There are also coverage on medical related sites with The NewsWeek, The Forbes and VentureBeat.--Ehtsham Tariq (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)— Ehtsham Tariq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. DenBoer is of marginal notability and the article will be a BLP nightmare because he has surrendered his license. Jahaza (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A sensible alternative to deletion might be a redirect to a stub on This is Dementia. In addition to the Newsweek piece, there is a similar piece in Marketwatch [18]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Russ Woodroofe: I've considered that but there are two issues with doing that. First, those sources are extremely un-critical to the extent that they are potentially unreliable. Marketwatch calls him a clinical psychologist when as Jahaza has demonstrated that they cannot call themselves that. If they didn't manage to check such a basic fact, it isn't very encouraging. Newsweek is better, but is still mainly just an unquestioning interview. Second, even if we did create an article on the documentary, it would be extremely short, as there would be no MEDRS-compliant information that could be included. SmartSE (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smartse, I agree it's marginal for WP:NBOOK, and that any stub would need to be quite short. I unfortunately did not find any other reviews/similar. As far as the narrow issue of the Marketwatch piece and the psychologist title: it appears that he lost his psychologist license at the end of 2020 (after a probationary period starting in late 2018); the interview was in early 2019. So I don't think this is a red flag; I don't see any other red flags apart from the piece being mainly an interview. I believe Marketwatch to be generally reliable, although it is not discussed by WP:RSP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Russ Woodroofe: Ahh I thought you were talking about the documentary rather than the book. As far as I can see neither of those sources make any reference to the book. It is self-published and when I searched for reviews I couldn't find any. SmartSE (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doh! I did mean the documentary, and shouldn't have referred to NBOOK. The WP:NFILM is fairly similar to NBOOK (though with some important differences, such as the emphasis on national film critics). It is not clear that NFILM is quite the right standard for a Netflix documentary (which I think also bears some features of television), but WP:NTV is only an essay. However: we have in any case only two marginal-to-very-marginal sources, and I am now convinced that it is not enough for an article on the documentary. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I see some progress towards notability, I think it is WP:TOOSOON at best. The sources in the article at the time of AfD nomination were mostly refbombing. The BLP issues regarding the loss of license are not a reason to delete, but are certainly not a reason to keep. The case for an article on the documentary is a little stronger, but this still appears to fall short. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The arguments to keep are generally somewhat weak, but some SIGCOV has been shown, and we can't discount it simply because it concerns things that wouldn't be covered in non-royalty. My personal inclination is to delete, but there's consensus to keep here. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews[edit]

George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews (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)

Being a relative of British royalty doesn't make one automatically notable. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. There is no WP:SIGCOV of him that I see. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]