Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 7

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< March 06 March 08 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kapampangan separatism

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

Seems a case of WP:SYNTH, which uses sources that mention Kapampangan culture in general without mentions of separatism or independence movements. The movement is a fringe movement at best which has yet to garner significant third party attention. Only source which does imply separatism is a self published blog by a certain Michael Pangilingan and more mainstream proposals by politicians tackling the possible setup of the Pampanga region in a federal Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 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! 22:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Ambition (film)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing of substance was found in a WP:BEFORE that could help support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:30, 7 March 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 Cultural impact of Shakira. Star Mississippi 00:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira Studies

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

There is no exists something called "Shakira Studies" in media and academic circles. Beyond this, most of major music acts have received dedicated scholarly articles but there is not a justification in this case to have a separate article because she's not a recognized "topic" among scholars. There is not exists citations from one academic to other, among others essencial stuffs in the scholarship discourse. In addition, current article doesn't present any relevant view from academic fields. This is a WP:CFORK of the Cultural impact of Shakira and an inspired-article in the Madonna studies (WP:OTHERSTUFF), which has been a very exceptional case in the international academia world from a musician. Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, pop stars usually have received scholarly attention from articles to courses, but the problem is creating a whole article (starting from a title that virtually doesn't exists by third-party sources) and when 5 or 10 scholarly articles, or 5 courses doesn't make you an established topic. The literature about her in the academic world is poor and not officially "recognized" by others authoritative sources. Academic's point of view on Shakira is not articulated; take an imaginary example of a comment from one eminent academic and hasn't been discussed/cited etc by other academics and from an international sphera; that's a normal process in socio-cultural perspectives in academia world. This doesn't happen to Shakira, and with the article as a whole. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea of ​​changing the name or even merging it with Shakira's Cultural Impact page. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AlexanderShakifan29 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — AlexanderShakifan29 (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]

We could change the title of the article to something more appropriate, but it has sources and everything to be a good article in the future. In these times, Shakira is already given the recognition she deserves. PasandolaYourpower (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is essay-like, and as far as I can tell the sources do not establish notability for its topic, namely an academic field called "Shakira studies". Large parts are evidently copied, including sources, so I don't see what's worth merging. (eg. from Cultural impact of Shakira#Multiculturalism) -- Scyrme (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cultural impact of Shakira and leave an {{r from merge}}. casualdejekyll 02:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of the article has been blocked one week for sock puppetry. Erick (talk) 20:03, 10 March 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. Star Mississippi 00:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tizane Miller

edit
Tizane Miller (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)

Unsurprisingly, all of hte sources are paid for PR/spam - including Asian Age which is just a sent in press release as per the disclaimer. CUPIDICAE💕 22:38, 7 March 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 Laura Bush. There is no consensus to keep the content/article, but redirects are cheap. Although consensus is divided on where, going with Laura Bush for the reasons JPL puts forward. No objection to that being changed should consensus change Star Mississippi 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Welch

edit
Jenna Welch (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)

Mother of Laura Bush, First Lady of the USA from 2001-09. Seems to be notable only for her death and her daughter being the First Lady. Natg 19 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep - in addition to the by-lined obituary, I have added coverage of her in birding and as the eponymous of the Jenna Welch Nature Preserve, and citations discussing the Jenna Welch Women's Center, and the Jenna Welch and Laura Bush library at El Paso Community College. All told, these add up to enough for keep. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would a redirect to Laura Bush be better? Welch is not mentioned in the Bush family article. Natg 19 (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the three institutions are only named for Jenna Welch, only the library is jointly Welch/BuschBush. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot even spell Bush right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 10 March 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. you could argue for an additional relist, but none of the keeps are addressing the lack of sourcing Star Mississippi 00:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NorthEast ComicCon & Collectibles Extravaganza

edit
NorthEast ComicCon & Collectibles Extravaganza (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 doesn't appear to be a notable con. It only has minor local coverage, if anything and doesn't appear to have much else in the way of coverage outside of fanblogs. Despite having several notable names appear, it just doesn't have the coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 19:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is basically directly from the con itself, the second is an actual press release and the last is a standard "do this this weekend" that every major city publishes. It's not coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 20:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Everything I'm seeing runs afoul of WP:ROUTINE, and sounds like they're all coming off of press releases. Nothing by way of significant coverage that actually is what's necessary to meet the GNG. Ravenswing 21:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is more than enough credible sources to back up this article, not to mention the article has been fixed up greatly since it was tagged for deletion. This convention is more notable than many other small conventions that are listed on Wikipedia. If this one were to get deleted, then all of those would have to go as well. Rocknrollhippie (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 7 March 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. Or at most no consensus. Apart from the nominator, the "delete" opinions don't really develop an argument or address the sources found by the "keep" side in any detail. Sandstein 08:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Hoang

edit
Van Hoang (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)

Poorly sourced stub about a non-notable writer. A search finds this article, but I don't know how WP:RS Publishers Weekly is, and in any case one source isn't enough to establish notability. Fails general WP:GNG and specific WP:AUTHOR notability. (The only reason I didn't request speedy was because some might argue that a published book implies some noteworthiness.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Conventionally, an author can usually pass WP:NAUTHOR with two WP:NBOOK-notable books. In addition to the Publishers' Weekly profile/interview from the nom, I found some reviews. Monkey King: kirkus (starred) booklist (starred) PW (starred) school library journal. Jade War: kirkus booklist (starred). PW doesn't have a full review of the sequel, just a nod in a list of noteworthy sequels; no mention of the sequel at SLJ. (As a general tip, looking at the publisher's page for a book can be a good way to find published reviews, since they like to quote from them.) I interpret that as two NBOOK passes and therefore an NAUTHOR pass. The PW profile gives a useful amount of biographical information that allows for a meaningful author profile to be written, and there is also a kirkus interview. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, implied in my !vote but I should state it -- I consider PW a standard RS for book reviews. Kirkus, PW, and Booklist are not the most selective review venues (ie they're not slam-dunk for notability the way a NYT or LARB review would be) but the starred reviews are much more distinctive, so the first one is a clear pass with 3 starred reviews, and it's the star at booklist that really pushes the second one over the line for NBOOK for me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment — two things: 1) a book review may make the book notable, but not its author, unless it provides sigcov of the latter; and 2) even if you accept that two notable books makes the author inherently notable, where is the second notable book? A book having been written does not automatically make it notable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @DoubleGrazing I missed the second book reading the comment too, because it's buried in the list of review links. That's Jade War, which has both a Kirkus review and the starred Booklist one. -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) WP:AUTHOR states that an author is notable if they have created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work which has been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. There is no requirement for sigcov of the author. NAUTHOR is unusual, like WP:NPROF, for allowing persons to derive notability from their works even when there is no direct biographical coverage. However, in this case we also have two RS profiles of the author in addition to the reviews. 2) WP:NBOOK states that a book is notable if it has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... reviews. The second book has two published reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The "sources" currently provided are all mere publicity. There's already a wiki article on the novel. What's the point of a biographical article on the author with no biographical information and no reliable sources? Ficaia (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. LEvalyn has demonstrated the two WP:NBOOK passes. I think it's worth adding that the second book only just came out, so this is more an "already two reviews" situation than an "only two reviews" situation. As for "what's the point in a biographical article that is only a sentence long" - that's an argument against stubs, not this stub in particular, and to expand this one we do have biographical info - see for example this extensive profile in PW: [8] (to answer nom's question - this is the trade journal for publishing in the USA). -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete (deleted per WP:G11 by Jimfbleak). (non-admin closure) Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Marathi OTT

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

No claim to notability, all sources are advertisement or trivial mentions, and the founder is Akshay Bardapurkar, about whom see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amitbhb12/Archive - multiple hoax articles were created about him a couple of years ago. The website apparently exists but the exaggerated claims can't be trusted given that there are no secondary sources that do more than mention it. It's not unlikely that the creator is another sock, but I can't say that for certain. Cinzia007 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 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! 22:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katina Stefanova (investor)

edit
Katina Stefanova (investor) (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)

utterly non-notable CEO - no idea if the company is notable but she is not on her own - most sources are just passing mentions, co-written by Stefanova or press releases/interviews. Also worth noting this was previously created as Katina Stefanova by an undisclosed paid editor and subsequently salted by @MER-C:. CUPIDICAE💕 20:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable per the sourcing as detailed above. Also, I don't see why it would need draftifying, when Draft:Katina Stefanova already exists. Bishonen | tålk 09:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Way below the line for WP:GNG and I can't really fathom what she is supposed to be notable FOR? The question usually is "does notability stack up?" here it seems to be "What is the notability?"  Velella  Velella Talk   21:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore, this is something very advanced anti spam editors like Praxidicae already know, but for those not familiar with the laughable antics of Spam/UPE, editors, this gimmick, & this one too, are intentional gaslighting maneuvers intended to put Praxi or any editor querying their dubious edits on the defensive but unfortunately for them this isn’t Praxi's first rodeo. Furthermore @Kathyspikes no! nobody is draftyfing a non notable paid job. Furthermore this edit is disingenuous and borders on outrightly being mendacious as you are the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject's prior job at Bridgewater does was not inherently notable, nor does the subsequent coverage of Marto Capital's gyrations confer biographical notability of any individual there. (The previous SALTing of the obvious article title should really be considered as extending to any bracketed titles that might be appended in further instances such as this.) AllyD (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. I was unable to find content that meets WP:SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:36, 14 March 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! 22:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Sinjin

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

BLP. Only references are to his own works. Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USable

edit
USable (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 was originally copied from German Wikipedia and has only primary sources as references. A WP:BEFORE search yields no usable references (I've search Google Books/News/Scholar/Web and Bing as well). There's little content to merge, and it would be accompanied by no reliable sources anyway (unless someone can find offline sources, or perhaps sources in German). Mindmatrix 20:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ziv Zaifman

edit
Ziv Zaifman (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 seeing any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Edwardx (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. I suggest that once this is no longer part of an ongoing conflict or battle, we will be better able to assess its lasting importance (or lack thereof). Sandstein 20:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Kyiv convoy

edit
Russian Kyiv convoy (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 seems to be an unnecessary fork of Kyiv offensive (2022), which would be an apt place to describe the convoy. I propose that this article be merged redirected to the article on the offensive, where the subject can be covered in sufficient depth. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC) (updated: 22:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: You need to be careful not to blur the lines between an encyclopedia and a news outlet. Wikipedia is not responsible for reporting news, but notable subjects. Take a read of the wikilinks in my !vote below. Your rationale that, quote, "it makes sense to me to have a separate article, for space reasons", is unfortunately in itself not a valid reason to keep. Let me say that if the invasion is still going in perhaps a month or so and this convoy remains exactly the same, unmoved and unchanged with tons of reporting, then the case is "stronger", depending on the reporting of it. There really is not much to say about a convoy without unnecessary bloat of information that is more pertinent to the invasion itself. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back a trimmed version to parent article then Delete, where do you start with this? It's a convoy, WP:NOTNEWS. Furthermore, part of the article (Reasons section) is basically just WP:SPECULATION, while other parts are just discussing the invasion itself not directly related to.. the convoy. I am sure Deathlibrarian means well, but this is just not a sustainable article as things stand. Yes, it's curious when reading reports on it, in the news, but in relation to the invasion only. Can redirect if desired, but I see little point really. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    15,000 soldiers and hundreds of tanks and trucks... is not your average convoy! If it was just an unimportant convoy, it wouldn't have numerous articles written about it, trying to assess it's size, its lethality, and what its current situation is. There is a lot of worldwide attention on this convoy...and the future of Kyiv..and therefore Ukraine depends on what happens to it.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "and the future of Kyiv..and therefore Ukraine depends on what happens to it." - this is speculation. We don't know anything at this time. What if next week, or next month, another few convoys of similar size appear? Do we have an article for those too? At this time, this is news. It's quite an important bit of news in relation to the invasion and it may become something more significant in time, but it is not an encyclopedic subject right now, and may never be. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    May be the future of the Ukraine is speculation, but the future of Kyiv is pretty closely linked to a 60 kilometre long convoy that is coming to siege it!. Also, the President is in Kyiv, and so far has vowed not to leave. It's not likely for there to be another convoy of this size appearing anytime soon, as US defence intel reports Russia has just about committed all its troops...they have left staging areas, and they are now inside Ukraine. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is primarily responsible for a siege on Kyiv, then maybe we'll have Siege of Kyiv (2022) or something similar, as a hypothetical notable future event. A convoy is not a notable event. It's a convoy. It hasn't even done anything yet. At best (and this is me stretching my faith perhaps a little far), it's WP:TOOSOON, but likely any event that comes about as a direct result of the actions of this convoy will in all probability have more of a chance to satisfy an article in its own right as a potentially notable event. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact we already have Battle of Kyiv (2022) so that partially already answers my point. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there is discussion here[1] (and other places) of its failure having an effect on the entire war....so clearly it's quite important, and therefor no....it's not your average convoyDeathlibrarian (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have amended to a merge !vote as the underlying content is relevant to the conflict, as it was before the split. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Battle of Kyiv (2022). While I could understand the sentiment in favour of keeping this article, still, WP:TOOSOON to predict notability. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I think this is an important enough topic to keep but not as its own article, maybe have a section on the page of a different article relating to the Kyiv offensive dedicated to this Charmingander (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/is-a-stuck-convoy-in-ukraine-a-setback-for-russia-1.5804854
  • integrate either into Kyiv offensive (2022) or Battle of Kyiv (2022), as this convoy is nothing but an aspect of these engagements, since the outcome of these engagements are likely to highly depend on the outcome of this convoy, and the convoy only exists because of these engagements. So, I'd say, make this page a redirect to a section in Kyiv offensive (2022) describing it in sufficent detail. --1234567891011a (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Kyiv offensive (2022), not quite good enough for its own article, but it can be of use in another article. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see it notable enough to have its own page and should be part of the Kyiv offensive related articles. - UtoD 14:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I’d like to see this expanded into an article on the Russian military planning, deployment, morale, corruption, and logistics problems that this convoy is a symptom of. —Michael Z. 21:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice one I think that's an interesting idea and probably notable idea for a page - there's plenty of articles discussing it, and it's general so doesn't really apply to any particular offensive. Overall, if fully fleshed out, it would be substantive enough to have its own article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Kyiv offensive (2022). I don't discount that this particular convoy may eventually become notable as a standalone subject, but it's a bit too early to have forks for very specific aspects of one battle which isn't even over. Atchom (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nom. I think that merging is probably better than blanking and redirecting it at this point. It's clear that some of the content is going to be usable in a fuller version of a Kyiv Offensive (2022) article that focuses on narrative prose rather than being a pseudo-list. The convoy narrative deserves mention in that offensive's article, if nothing else to describe the state of the offensive's logistics, but a merge is superior to a redirect at this point, in my book. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per comments above. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say Merge. While there are tons of news stories, it isn't enough to warrent its own article. Felicia (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The wording, especially in the lead, needs to be either corrected to the past tense or {{asof}}'d (see WP:RELTIME) so that in the hypothetical case that nobody does any more edits, the article still remains accurate. The content itself has been very widely commented on in WP:RS, and could possibly characterise a key turning point in the invasion: either leading to a rapid collapse of the Russian invasion, or possibly a quagmire attempt to occupy Kyiv. The convoy may also turn into a major component of Russian conscript fatalities ("sitting ducks"). This seems to me to be a justified split from Kyiv offensive (2022). Boud (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Boud (I've already rewritten the lede a bit), as well as the observation that Kyiv offensive (2022) currently barely even mentions the convoy/column anywhere. It has so far barely had any direct impact on the battle of Kyiv or its environs yet (most attacks are coming from the east). As its strategic objectives are still unclear, let alone what it will do in the future, its activities are still distinct. That, as well as the fact that merging them would create a lot of confusion and lack of overview, justifies two separate articles (for now). Obviously, we should remain cautious that the stall might not be as problematic and damaging as it might seem (some speculate all too soon that the convoy will soon be entirely crippled, but such claims may be influenced more by wishful thinking than evidence), and that the convey probably still has a lot of offensive potential. I also note that several news reports don't call it the 'Kyiv convoy' or anything, but just refer to its length (e.g. 'Russia's 64km-long military convoy') rather than speculating on its destination (which could be wrong). For now, I think the title is okay, just because virtually all RS were/are expecting it to eventually attack Kyiv, but there are many things we do not know at this point. Some claims remain unsourced, I've put up citations needed for those, but generally, all sources here are RS and most claims are backed by those RS. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the level of media attention is sufficient for an article, it may become a major turning point in the war one way or the other MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All unsourced claims have now been removed or verified by RS. Irrelevant speculations have been removed, duplications have been deleted, and incorrect claims about drone strikes have been corrected (note: all drone strikes reported so far have occurred elsewhere in Ukraine, such as Sumy and Brovary, but not at this convoy; I recommend users to read news reports very carefully and avoid mixing events and locations up. So far, Ukrainian troops appear to have only used ground fire against the convoy). The latest information suggests that several units of the convoy are splitting up to seize and control certain strategic locations in the areas northwest of Kyiv rather than marching straight towards Kyiv, providing yet more evidence for the view that it is to be described separately from Kyiv offensive (2022), and really doesn't meet the definition of a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, but does fall within WP:SPINOFF, and therefore fails the nomination for deletion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thanks for the tidy up, and removal of where things may have strayed from the sources, its's always good to have a second set of eyes look at things.I tried to address the citations needed tags in my last round of edits. I must note I'm pretty sure that some of the earlier sources stated that drone strikes hit the column, but perhaps its become more obvious that isn't the case now, but in any case its great you've done a tidy up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. Everyone can make mistakes like that from time to time, including me. I also thought that Bronk had stated that drones had hit the convoy, but on listening closely a second time, he was talking about the earlier drone strikes that happened around Sumy and elsewhere, clarifying that in response to that, the Russian military has in fact increased air defences around the Kyiv convoy, making it difficult to replicate the earlier successes (at least with manned aircraft; he curiously didn't say how effective the TB2s might still be against the column. The National did give some information about that, so I mentioned that). Overall, I think you've done a good job of providing revelant information from RS, thank you for that. There's a lot of political, military, strategic, logistical etc. talk about this convoy, what it has done and might do, and its strengths and weaknesses, so bringing all that knowledge together in a balanced Wikipedia article is important for the public. We'll see what happens next. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Baykar Bayraktar TB2#Ukraine and 2022 Russian invasion is an interesting section. All claims made there are about TB2 strikes far away from Kyiv, as far as I can tell. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, I put a British English tag on the page and talk page, but I notice you're actually Australian, and are mostly using Australian news sources. Shall we change it to Australian English? I don't know that there are significant differences between them (British English is my personal standard), but if there is a discrepancy, I'm okay with letting Australian spelling and grammar precede, since you set up this article in that style. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, yes that's good you did that - British English and Australian English are 99% the same, I didn't even know people tagged articles in Australian English to be honest!. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the article as been expanded and cleaned up (thanks to Nederlandse Leeuw and Deathlibrarian for the work), and has received a lot of attention both by the media as well as military experts/researchers. Applodion (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a military phenomenon. many military experts say it is the longest military column in modern history. there are extremely many reliable sources. Tsans2 (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is now clearly notable in its own right. — The Anome (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above "Keep" arguments, it's a notable event within the conflict - but I concede that it needs work to bring it up to spec. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's already part of other Kyiv offensive related articles. BobNesh (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the concern I have is that this is relevant to the conflict "right now", but we have no idea to what extent or what the longevity is. I said above this could be WP:TOOSOON and stand by that, as its apparent notability is only inherited by the wider conflict. It's reported extensively in the news, but that doesn't mean it's got long-term notability when things move on. I think right now it's too early to say and the article is too much WP:CRYSTAL. I'll revise my !vote to merge back to the parent article until (or unless) we can demonstrate an independent notable subject from this. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appavin Meesai

edit
Appavin Meesai (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 unreleased film from 2013 never saw the light of the day. Its production lacks independent coverage in reliable sources, and its failure is not notable per WP:NFF guidelines. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted per G5 - I've just blocked the author as a CU-confirmed sock. Girth Summit (blether) 07:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Girth Summit (blether) 07:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ikeobi Ekwevi

edit
Daniel Ikeobi Ekwevi (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)

Reviewed the sources provided and I don't see enough external coverage of this subject to meet WP:GNG at this time. One local news item turned up in a Google search (along with a press release just come out today announcing he's signed with a talent agency). The local recognition doesn't seem to reach the bar of notability at this time. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the guidelines. Subject meets all notability qualifications and subject passes all 1-14 reasons for deletion. Uninvolved moderators usually do their due diligence. Thank you for your considerations.
General notability guideline
Shortcuts
WP:GNG
WP:SIGCOV
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
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.
"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.
1.Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
2.Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
3.Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
4.Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content
5.Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
6.Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes
7.Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
8.Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
9.Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
10.Redundant or otherwise useless templates
11.Categories representing overcategorization
12.Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy
13.Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
14.Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia 2601:5C5:201:CB80:ED94:17F:37D4:DB25 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've removed the worst of the sources (Tumblr and Blogspot, for example. See WP:RSP). Then I removed the sources that didn't even mention him, which were at least three of them. What's left is paltry. The Curb Consulting Ventures, ng-check.com, and nigeria24.me sources are all routine company listings, which are examples of trivial coverage (see WP:CORPDEPTH). That leaves the Africa: Journal source, but it's behind a paywall so I cannot access it; and an interview in The Burg, which is therefore not independent. Basically, what's left is a CV for LinkedIn, not WP. --Kbabej (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like edits are being made! 2601:5C5:201:CB80:10A0:EC23:FA39:BA6C (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin, please be aware the above !vote is from an SPA. Likely a sock. —Kbabej (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep — consensus that WP:AUTHOR is met, and nomination withdrawn. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Chung Chien-peng

edit
Chung Chien-peng (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 page creator maintains that the subject satisfies WP:NAUTHOR, but I don't see it. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by the nominator - It looks like I misinterpted our requirements under WP:NAUTHOR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarabel Möller

edit
Sarabel Möller (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 cannot find any reliable sources online for this artist. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Coffman

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

Fails NOLYMPICS and GNG. Sources found through google are not SIGCOV, but rather a list of his sports achievements (e.g. representing the University of Kansas. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No Basic biographical details only; states without elaborating where he was born, and where he competed. ✘ No
Yes No Database ✘ No
Yes Yes No Two paragraphs on Coffman, only telling us that he won the pentathlon and broad jump, came second in the javelin and 200m, third in the 1500m, and fourth in the discus, without the elaboration required to make it significant coverage. ✘ No
Yes ~ No Database ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I doubt Wikipedians will buy into the idea that a source doesn't count because it doesn't mention where the subject was born. Besides that, the source DOES state where he was born and where he competed: "Clyde Coffman was born in Ford in 1911 and started with the University of Kansas track and field team as a pole-vault specialist." It further provides that he competed in the 1932 Olympics in the Decathalon. YEEESH. That's EXACTLY the kind of information we seek! There is no place for such blatant bias here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I was not clear. I meant that it states where he was born and what he competed in without elaborating on it; essentially, it is statistics in prose form, and so is not WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I had to read it multiple times, but I see that could be interpreted and understand what you meant now. Let me try that table (I will only use two sources) and there is clearly enough information to create the Wikipedia article:
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Yes Provides bio background including place and year of birth and where subject competed for college as well as in the 1932 Olympic Games. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Title states "Brilliant All-Around Performance" for the subject in competition for the National Championship in the pentathlon. The event was held at Palmer Stadium in Princeton and Coffman scored 3,084 points in the pentathlon. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

That's my assessment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete none of the sources amount to providing actual imdepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SIGCOV doesn't really define the term in-depth coverage - however, it does provide a definition of significant coverage-- "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Calling for such "in-depth" coverage is beyond the standard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on the available sources. Alvaldi (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find BilledMammal's assessment more convincing than Paul McDonald's. Lacks significant coverage. Pilaz (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sportspeople are measured on their numerical productivity so to speak. If there are sources that give significant coverage about him through his performances, that's fine, doesn't matter if they are measuring him by numbers and that doesn't invalidate him. Sportspeople are judged on how much they score/speed etc just as businesspeople are measured on $$ and academics on how many papers/citations they get. Based on the reasoning I have seen, this implies the ludicrous notion that a person becomes more notable if there is some qualitative 'human interest' info about them eg marital status/early life/no of children. Bumbubookworm (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not my reasoning; my reasoning is that to have significant coverage we need more than basic statistics. WP:NOTDATABASE speaks to this; "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". With only basic statistics, as we have here, we cannot put the data in context - but explanations limited to his sporting career and not covering the rest of his life would address this, and thus be acceptable. BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I think the sourcing and Kansas Athletics HOF might just get us into the gray world created in the monster RfC. Star Mississippi 03:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: International athlete played in 1932 Summer Olympics and national pentathlon champion, passes WP:NATH. Jeni Wolf (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In my estimation, the available sources are sufficient to meet the general guidelines for inclusion. Canadian Paul 04:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First off, he clearly passes WP:NATH#5, which is enough to meet WP:N's requirement that an article meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). Secondly, the athlete additionally meets WP:GNG. The biographical article written about him over twenty years after his death and the NYT Piece each give significant coverage of the individual; each article addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. We may have a short article on our hands until someone can figure out a way to look for old news articles on newspapers.com without having to go through an inordinate amount of sports tables, but there's still enough here to indicate that the person himself is notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 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.

Otto Anderson

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to those that found sources :D (non-admin closure) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails NOLYMPICS and GNG. No SIGCOV could be found. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, no need to redirect, per my above comment. Thanks! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Nilsson (volleyball)

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

Fails NOLYMPICS and GNG. Swedish wikipedia does not have any indications of WP:SIGCOV sources to use here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus I fail to see how this could be canvassing (especially noting the neutral tone of the notification" - exactly. WP:APPNOTE encourages this type of notification. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A. C. Santacruz: Since it was over 500 hits in the records, I need to know a bit more of what you want me looking for. There is some interviews with him about the 1989 Championship, since Sweden beat Soviet, which was a sensation at that time. --- Løken (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three articles that meet the requirements of WP:GNG; given you mention interviews, whether the coverage is independent may become relevant. If they exist, I will flip my !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just some examples of SIGCOV in non-local newspapers. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have time or more important, I don't have the interest to spend hours to read Swedish newspapers (not my spoken language). If the silver from 1989 isn't enough to keep the article, that fine by me. --- Løken (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Clapp

edit
Kate Clapp (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)

Possible COI promotional article on a non notable Russian blogger who fails GNG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing concrete. They fail to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO as well. Furthermore they are a singer but fail to meet any criterion from from WP:SINGER. The sources used are predominantly unreliable as they are either self published or user generated. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 7 March 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 Also, please be nice to fellow editors - we all have off days when finding sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder One (film)

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

A movie with "one" review at RottenTomatoes, and a "reception" from a wordpress page. The movie exists, but the best I could find were a few lines here, other sources are more like this one or this one. Not enough to show notability. Fram (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to think Orangemike, an admin with 15+ years WP experience, may want to reconsider his !vote in light of the recent expansion and nom withdrawal from Fram, but I have no hope whatsoever that JPL will reconsider. Still, this in all likelihood with end with a keep as it stands, so I guess it is inconsequential. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Witthdrawn as nominator (can't close it, there are delete votes). Just a few points: I did do a "before" search, as can be seen in the nom. When doing my search again, I see that I somehow missed the LA Times review, which I should have seen. The other newspaper reviews don't appear in my results. "Has a widely-released North American film ever been not notable - even the bombs? " Probably not, but I had no indication at all that this movie was ever widely released and not a very limited release instead. All in all, a clearly notable film, but this was not clear at all from the article and (apart from that one review I should have noticed) not clear from my "before" search either, perhaps because after the initial release it was all but forgotten. Still, should not have been an AfD. Fram (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the reviews I mentioned by searching for "Murder One" "Henry Thomas" as the title alone will give a lot of irrelevant results. I can see that you did a WP:BEFORE - the two delete !voters however showed no evidence of having done anything. --Michig (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I definitely see the problem at the time of nomination, as it cited no reliable sources at all, but the article's been improved significantly since. The challenge is that not every database offers equal access to every newspaper in existence — a person who searches Newspapers.com is not going to find Globe and Mail or Toronto Star hits that way, for example, and a person who searches ProQuest's Canadian Newsstream collection is not going to find any non-Canadian coverage that way, because each database can only find coverage from papers that it has in its collection to search — so I'd suggest not piling on Fram, who obviously acted in good faith based on the resources they had access to. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram is an experienced editor who is more than capable of checking historic news sources (which are free via the wikipedia library to experienced editors) although seemingly only the easy-access google books/news sources where searched. I can understand some people could forget about, or not (yet) have access to newspapers.com et al, but Fram PRODded within 2 hours of creation and sent to discussion a few hours after that, so not really affording time for others to develop it a little more. This is academic anyway as Fram has, in all fairness, accepted this in the withdrawal above and the conclusion now seems inevitable. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say, User:Bearcat, that I'm particularly familiar with User:Fram - but a newspaper.com search found evidence of the movie opening in the spring, as well as a widespread release across other parts of North America in the fall, with lots of reviews. A Proquest search through Wikipedia would at least let you see the Globe and Star hits, without being able to open them, if you toggled on "Show results outside my library's subscription". There's more than enough information readily available to avoid nominating. But we all have off-days. Even then, I don't think it's best practice be nominating Canadian articles without having good access to Canadian databases. I'm more concerned though that User:Johnpacklambert keeps on voting Delete with little evidence of Before, despite their current sanction on creating AFDs (and I'm surprised that User:Orangemike hasn't reviewed their vote - but I've no concerns in that direction either). Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 13 March 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.

Charlotte Petrick

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bonoahx (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Charlotte Petrick (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 notability guidelines at WP:NTENNIS have changed since this article was last nominated for deletion. The player now fails the guidelines as a win at an ITF $25k tournament is no longer considered notable, if the tournament was held after 2007. She has not played a professional match since 2017. Bonoahx (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, discussion better suited to Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) (non-admin closure) Bonoahx (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Fernandez

edit
Bianca Fernandez (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 player no longer meet the recent changes to WP:NTENNIS, that deems notability as winning a title above ITF 50k. She has played with her sister, Leylah Fernandez, who does meet notability guidelines, so perhaps parts of this article could be merged with Leylah Fernandez#Personal life and the article could be resurrected if and when she meets WP:NTENNIS. Bonoahx (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bonoahx (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bonoahx (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Bonoahx (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bonoahx (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - may not meet the new criteria for NTENNIS but I believe she meets WP:GNG. I found a good amount of sources through a quick search that actually mention her and not just in passing while mentioning her sister, like here. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes Wikiproject Tennis Guideline. Played in the main draw of the 2022 Monterrey Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay. As such, arguments based on it have no weight at AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • They absolutely do have weight. WikiProjects have never been relegated to obsolescence. Wikipedia guidelines are also guidelines, not policy. There are many items that standard guidelines cannot conceive of and it's why WikiProjects are so vital to take the weight off of really important items that the encyclopedia has to deal with. Are the weights different... of course... but Tennis Project will continue to use their guidelines along with other wikipedia guidelines to make a determination on things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • To quote more of the policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. This means that an essay at Wikiproject Tennis cannot be used to support keeping an article that fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • They have since the beginning of Wikipedia, and that's not going to change. The general populous of Wikipedia doesn't have the time or where-with-all to go through what a WikiProject has to go through day in and day out. Every tennis article would be vandalized, unreadable, filled with conjecture, and unstructured. Our guideline has been scrutinized by 100s of editors through the years. It has been used by administrators and advanced editors to fine-tune many tennis Featured Articles. It's not some willy-nilly set of guidelines. It has developed over a decade and has had much input on the project talk page. It has weight and cannot just be dismissed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • That might have been the case at the beginning of Wikipedia, but that is not the case now. If you want the essay at Wikiproject Tennis to be relevant here you either need to have it accepted as a guideline, or modify WP:CONSENSUS to allow such essays to be used as you want to use them. BilledMammal (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then it beggars the question as to why WP:NTENNIS has been changed so dramatically. I understand that there was a wide-ranging discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability regarding notability of players of all sports. Before this, the guidelines were such that it would've been an error on my part to nominate Bianca Fernandez or any other of the articles I nominated as it would have quite clearly met WP:NTENNIS. I think it's a good idea to discuss as to whether there's some room for improvement there, be it through consensus on AfD or other discussion. Bonoahx (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • There is room for improvement, through a careful proposal at WP:NSPORT that will fix the issues we had with the previous NTENNIS, that supported articles on non-notable individuals, like many of the ones you have now nominated, being kept. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No question there is always room for improvement and some players will always be iffy. However, as was mentioned in the series of nsport dialogs, they were not meant to be a green light to remove already existent articles by the bushload. It was really meant for things going forward. Wiki Guidelines have been over-ridden so many times since I've been here that my head spins from thinking about it. Sometimes from a consensus of two people. Wikiproject Tennis Guidelines usually work very well and it stops heaps and heaps of edit wars. Do some slip though... sure they do.... but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nsport is extremely general in nature and can't handle everything and that's where individual projects shine. They keep things running smoothly with the editors that actually have to deal with these issues day in and day out. We don't nominate and run, we have to stick it out in the tall weeds and mud. We've worked very hard on the Guidelines so that they work. Anyone who says they have zero weight and bearing on these issues is wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I understand, and Bianca probably meets WP:GNG anyway, but I hope you can see where I am coming from as having entirely different guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Player to what are now the guidelines in WP:NTENNIS is extremely confusing, but there is a point to be made in that it reduces the number of short articles of players that have only played one or two matches in their entire career. The primary guideline that has been removed is a player is notable after having competed in the main draw of an ATP/WTA tournament or a grand slam. The current iteration of WP:NTENNIS would've potentially caused Emma Raducanu to be considered non-notable until after she won the 2021 US Open (there was obviously enough significant coverage before then, but that's besides the point). Bonoahx (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is young but there is enough sources online a simple google search proves that, and all SNGs need reinstating. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ortinel G

edit
Ortinel G (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)

completely and utterly non notable rapper. all sources are paid for PR/blackhat SEO or outright unreliable. CUPIDICAE💕 14:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Notability is based on the coverage the individual gets within their professional setting. And for the individual based in this article is notable in the Australian Christian Hip Hop sphere. Also I don't think the sources are unreliable, I think they were just poorly cited. The references provided in the article meet the guidlines of references required and just needed to be correctly structured. Perth1991 (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Perth1991: Hello. Can you point to which sources you believe are RS? Per my assessment (as seen below) not one of the sources meets the RS threshold. --Kbabej (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing moderator: Perth1991 is an SPA and has only been active today in editing this article. --Kbabej (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've removed the YouTube sources per WP:RSPYT. After removing those, there are 8 sources left in the article. Half of those are the subject's songs; the Wes Bredenhof source is a blog, and thus unreliable; there are two Free Press Info sources, which are just press releases; and finally, there is the Disrupt Magazine piece which is clearly a regurgitated press release (you can also pay to have an article written about you, as seen on their website here). Not one RS for this article, and when I did a before, it was just more of the same press release churnalism. --Kbabej (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just reverted your edits for the youtube links as according to WP:RSPYT you are allowed to link videos to verified youtube channels and the channel for the subject of this article is a verified offical artist channel thus making the citations to it reliable and valid. In reference to the articles blogs are reliable as it is a third party medium that has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Furthermore, the free press info source is not a press release as can be clearly seen that it has an author who wrote the article. Also, Disrupt magazine is also not a "regurgitated press release" because it also has a clear author and also we cannot claim that the subject of these article paid to have the article written. That is information that you and I do not have. Therefore putting speculations aside, the references used are deemed RS. Perth1991 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing his channel on YouTube is verified? It is an unverified account with less than 80 followers. Just putting "official" in your name on YouTube does not make it verified. --Kbabej (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about the name, The channel has a quaver musical symbol next to it that signifies this is an official youtube channel, which is how musical accounts are verified on youtube do your research on this. Perth1991 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perth1991 Before you go reverting people I suggest you read the link in question and you know, stick to one account. CUPIDICAE💕 16:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Disrupt magazine is also not a "regurgitated press release" because it also has a clear author and also we cannot claim that the subject of these article paid to have the article written. It is literally information I do have and I have posted it numerous times on various discussion boards here. It's not reliable and your attempt to push your way through is laughable. Unless, of course, you really think that a stock image of a random guy in a suit under the name "Thomas Philip" complete with a link to a random dude's insta named Ayush Mehta (who is an "online presence growth expert") is reliable...well, I have a bridge to sell you. CUPIDICAE💕 16:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not see beyond speculations as to how that discredits this from being RS. The authors disrput magazine article's name is Thomas Phillip which is his government name, what does that have to do with the instagram account?? Perth1991 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. ok, it's clear you're either trolling or unwilling to look at the facts. CUPIDICAE💕 17:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has not been an established fact as to the provided references not being RS? Perth1991 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. I've deleted this per G5 - the creator was the confirmed sock of a banned user, and the only edit (apart from the deletion nom) was to remove a lot of unsupported content. Girth Summit (blether) 18:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Grade Company

edit
Smart Grade 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)

Hoax? I can find no evidence of a company called "Smart Grade Company" or even just "Smart Grade" in Jamshedpur or Seoul, never mind one with a $1.5 billion revenue. Perhaps I'm missing all sources, perhaps I miss just a few sources and this is a remarkably low profile company to be this big... Fram (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are few citations related to this I have to find more sources. User:BangsMetala — Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Hindi citations indicate that the subject is real, but I found no evidence this company passes WP:NCORP. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still seems very dubious. This article talks about the same supposed investment, but calls the Indian company involved "Smart Grid" (not "Smart Grade") and gives no indication of the name of the Korean company. And then the trail stops again. Basically, all we have are some nebulous announcements from 2017 which may or may not be based on something, which may or may not be about a Korean company called perhaps Smart Grid. Anyway, as long as it gets deleted, the remainder is not really important. Fram (talk) 16:07, 7 March 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 procedural close. The article was a verbatim cut-and-paste from the draft which had already been declined by AFC. It has been history merged back to the draft. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hansa Society

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

Fails WP:GNG. Draft also exists of this article, which was declined three times for lack of notability. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft has been edited and credible references have been added. FT99903 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 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. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foot Clan

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

Unlikely notable. The entire article is just written as original research and has zero sources (2 cited source are dead). OnlyFixingProse (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a reliable sources properly that talk about Foot clan. The entire article are just unsourced. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@OnlyFixingProse: Thanks and sorry to ask again, but I am not clear on this: Did you look only within the article, or did you also look for additional sources out there on the web along the avenues suggested by WP:BEFORE? Daranios (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did look on google search, but im having hard time finding a reliable source that talks about clan. But if you happen to find, the entire article shouldn't exist anyway as they are written as OR. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, as there are secondary sources dealing with the topic. Critique on the current state of the article is well warranted, but summarizing from the primary sources is not original research. I am surprised that this paper, which does quite a bit of analysis on the foot clan/Shredder's "family", was not found in a proper WP:BEFORE search. In addition I've found this German book, which has a good paragraph of analysis on pages 124/125, fullfilling the miniumum requirement of WP:GNG. A short background bit can be found here. The current article can be used as a start, trimming plot summary, but keeping what amounts to the "publication history" of the Foot clan, and be improved with analysis from those sources - which in the end allow to fullfill both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT. Daranios (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daranios's argument and their excellent effort with locating the relevant sources. The article's contents does need a WP:TNT with most of its in-universe content purged, but that doesn't mean a concisely-written page about the fictional organization can't stay in mainspace. Haleth (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let this page stay. While it is a recurring villain organization that has fought the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I also agree with the claims of @Daranios: and @Haleth:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Interesting. I read the scholarly article found. The analysis contains: "The turtles, in opposition to the Ninja soldiers of Master Shredder's Foot Clan, internalize American ideals and assimilate cultural" and "In fact, its name-Foot Clan-and location-Little Tokyo- implies criticisms of "clannish-ness," a resistance to dispersion into the American community, and its refusal to sever-or at least modify- ties to Japan". The other times they are mentioned seem to be plot summary mentions. Overall, this is much better than I expected; sadly, I cannot verify what is written in the German book. If Daranios could be asked to add a sentence or two based on the German sources to the article, and given the short but not trivial analysis in the English article found, this, surprisingly enough, could be a keeper.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ps. Ping User:Daranios. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: I have a plan to do this, just don't know yet how soon. Daranios (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: I have now added what I wanted to add from the German source. Daranios (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    its name ... implies criticisms of "clannish-ness" Since the name was a parody of the Hand from Daredevil, the author is inferring intent that doesn't exist. I haven't read the rest of the paper, but I'm skeptical of using this kind of uninformed analysis as a source. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Argento Surfer: I would be very wary before assuming that the author of a publication in an academic journal, which presumably has an editor doing some controlling, is less informed than us here. Could you please explain more why you think the paper is in error here? Also, could you please let me know for my understanding, was "the Hand" in Daredevil called Hand Clan oder indeed just "the Hand"? Was it a clan? Thanks for providing more details! Daranios (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Ninja Turtles are well documented for being created as a spoof of a popular story from Daredevil. Another parallel is that Daredevil gained his superpowers when a truck carrying toxic waste nearly hit him, and some of the waste was spilled on him. The turtles gained their mutant abilities when a truck carrying toxic waste missed a young boy and some of the waste spilled down a sewer drain. This information was no doubt available to the researcher. A reading of TMNT in terms of anti-Asian sentiment may be valid, but anyone who suggests the authors were "implying" such a bias missed the mark since the name and nationality of the villains was determined by a previous work. Ms. Cobb was inferring meaning where there was none. I'm curious if the paper makes any reference to the turtles' sensei being an exiled member of the Foot, of their being raised under it's uncorrupted principles, as acknowledging that would seem to undermine her argument.
    I have no plans to identify myself here, and therefore will not provide credentials, but I will say that I don't hesitate to put myself on even footing with Ms. Cobb with regards to this topic. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Argento Surfer: I in contrast have little background knowledge. But judging solely from the text, I see a number of arguments why I don't think there is a contradiction in the paper which would devalue it as a source. Most importantly, if my grasp of English does not fail me, "implies" can refer both to a person and a text. The intention of the creators of TMNT I think is never mentioned. The quoted sentence specifically refers to the impression the name and depiction of the Foot Clan makes. The argument, as I see it, is: the Foot Clan are the bad guys in the franchise, they are (in contrast to the Turtles) the unassimilated Japanese guys, and therefore give the concept of "Japanese Clan(ishness)" a bad press. Also, in contrast to the Hand from Daredevil, "Clan" has been added to the name, right? Interestingly, the second source, which I have now added, specifically mentions that it may or may not be intended by the authors, that there is a negative impression of foreignness in the respective movie, but that it's there. Daranios (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uncertain about the frequency of "clan" being used in Daredevil - I read that story once, and it's been a while. I'm unable to view more than the preview of the paper - is it focused specifically on the 1990 film? If so, the material might be better suited to that article instead of a Foot Clan article. Across the franchise, the Foot soldiers have been robots more often than they've been humans (of any nationality or race). Argento Surfer (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I have seen, the paper is not completely but mostly focussed on that one film. Daranios (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I'm not seeing enough material in the sources above that can't be covered in the existing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Shredder pages. Popcornfud (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. If we add what I found (excerpts above) and what Daranios found and translated (in the article), I think there is enough SIGCOV for this to squeak by. Surprising for such a niche topic, but you never know until you do a source query... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think there is enough to meet the minimum standard of GNG. It's an interesting case because there is analysis of the origin and meaning of "foot clan" which may actually be factually incorrect. Even if that is true, it would not count against GNG or SIGCOV. Although it does show the pitfalls of insisting there be "analysis" for fictional characters to be kept at AFD- anybody can write anything about a topic and call it analysis. Rhino131 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

XSuit

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

Clearly a promotional page. Fails WP:PROMOTION. All of the sources are either PR pages or articles through wHich you can buy the product via a link with a mention such as "All products featured here are independently selected by our editors and writers. If you buy something through links on our site, xxxxx may earn an affiliate commission." or clearly mentioned as sponsored posts or fluff pieces from lifestyle websites. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The main contributors are either WP:SPA users or quite possible WP:UPEs; Nothing found in independent WP:RS in a WP:BEFORE search. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco 49ers Gold Rush

edit
San Francisco 49ers Gold Rush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is very thinly sourced. It has existed for a long time, but the content could be rolled into football team's article. Nemov (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Miller Animation Studios

edit
Eric Miller Animation Studios (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)

Sources are either primary or don't mention the company at all. My WP:BEFORE comes up with nothing that would satisfy WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:21, 7 March 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kruty skirmishes

edit
Kruty skirmishes (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)

Tl;dr definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. Probably a complete or partial hoax.

Since this page came into creation, there has been basically 1 single source. There are some reprinted sources (for example, in the Ukrainian state media and [14]), but all stem from a single Facebook post by a local Facebook page. This Facebook page has basically 0 editorial integrity. No sources not citing this Facebook post exist; in essence, this entire article is basically just Ukrainian propaganda based on what one extremely biased person posted on Facebook. Searches in both English and Ukrainian yield no further sources not tied to this post.

I had initially merged this to Eastern Ukraine offensive, but was reverted by Magog the Ogre ([15]), who stated "this is a fast moving story and worthy of its own article". The only way this tortoise is fast moving is if the hare took a nap. Curbon7 (talk) 09:05, 7 March 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. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Cerrito

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

American filmmaker. This article has been variously deleted and salted for non-notability, but its latest incarnation ran into particular trouble at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Cerrito (2nd nomination), which was plagued by socks and whose "delete" closure was challenged at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 27, where I as the DRV closer decided to re-list the AfD in a hope at a cleaner discussion. Accordingly, this AfD has been protected against editing by new or anonymous accounts. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 07:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification to previous AfD participants eligible to participate, excluding closers and relisters: Huon, BennyHillbilly, MichaelQSchmidt, McGeddon, Johnpacklambert, Atlantic306, Tamzin, Alansohn, Oaktree b, Editorofthewiki, Roman Spinner, Lamona, Eggishorn, Feline Hymnic, Anton.bersh, Cyberwayfolk, Liz, Doczilla, MrsSnoozyTurtle.
Courtesy notification to previous DRV participants eligible to participate, excluding SPI clerks/admins: Bungle, Star Mississippi, Robert McClenon, Deb, SportingFlyer.
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Raskin, Eric (2015-04-03). "A Filmmaker's Gamble: With only $10,000 of backing, Mario Cerrito brought his poker horror film, Deadly Gamble, to life". All In Magazine. ISSN 1554-7167. Archived from the original on 2015-11-20. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes: "Mario Cerrito was a car salesman. He was also an independent filmmaker with a dream. And he found a way to be both at the same time. ... It was March of 2013 and Cerrito had an idea for a poker movie, so he took advantage of the pacing of his job to work his dream into it. For an entire month, whenever Cerrito wasn’t talking to a customer, he was sitting at his desk, banging out his script on his computer. ... As an amateur poker player from New Jersey who loves the game, Cerrito observed more than his share of those gambling addicts who didn’t know how to manage their bankrolls or when to walk away, and he based his main character on some of them."

    2. Lawrence, Ryan (2020-09-25). "Movie Magic: Mantua filmmaker gets horror movie vet to direct his script". The Sun Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes: "In the last five years, the Mantua resident has broken into the film industry as a rising horror film writer, director and producer. His most recent script, “The House in the Pines,” has kept Cerrito’s momentum moving forward. The script was signed off this month by Hollywood horror veteran Mick Strawn ... The 36-year-old Cerrito’s rise as a filmmaker coincides with the time he’s called Mantua home. Born and bred in South Jersey, Cerrito grew up in Audubon and went to high school in Woodstown before settling in Mantua five years ago with his wife, Charmaine, and their now 4-year-old son, Mario Cerrito IV, and his 11-year-old stepdaughter, Summer Schaefer."

    3. Zimmaro, Mark (2021-09-09). "South Philly director cooks up another horror film". South Philly Review. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes: "Cerrito, an independent filmmaker who was born in South Philly, hit worldwide cult following movie fame with his offering of Human Hibachi in 2019. ... The first Human Hibachi was picked up by Troma Entertainment, which provided a big boost for a low-budget film. Soon after, Cerrito was receiving messages from the far corners of the world about his movie. ... Cerrito had previously produced movies Deadly Gamble (2015) and The Listing (2017), which were filmed in the more traditional style."

    4. Berkery, Sheri (2019-10-24). "Haunted house in Mantua will be featured on Travel Channel's new 'Ghost Nation'". Courier-Post. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes: "As a horror writer, Mario Cerrito III is accustomed to having creepy characters living in his imagination. ... As the months passed, though, every member of the Cerrito household — his wife Charmaine, his 10-year-old stepdaughter Summer, and even 3-year-old Mario IV — experienced strange and increasingly scary phenomena. ...  So with no formal film production training and a $10,000 budget, Mario released "Deadly Gamble" in 2015. (Mario has a tattoo on his right wrist with the intials "DG" and the release date 3-24-15 to memorialize the occasion.) ... A second movie, "The Listing," about a successful real-estate agent's nightmarish deal, was marketed at the Marche Du Film at Cannes Film Festival. And his current project, a cult horror flick called "Human Hibachi," is being shot with an iPhone in the handheld-camera style of "The Blair Witch Project.""

    5. Roncace, Kelly (2012-12-01). "Woodstown High School graduate Mario Cerrito is realizing his dream as a writer/producer". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes: "Just about 10 years ago, Mario Cerrito — a 2002 Woodstown High School graduate — applied for a position at Creamy Acres' Night of Terror Halloween haunted attraction in Mullica Hill. ... Cerrito’s parents, Mario Jr. and Sheryl, have been behind their son every step of the way."

    6. Drame, Assane (2018-08-11). "N.J. filmmaker shooting his latest horror flick on an iPhone in South Jersey". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes: "That kid grew up to be Mario Cerrito. With two films under his belt, the Audubon native is currently in the process of finishing up production for his third film, 'Human Hibachi' which is being mainly shot in Riverside"

    7. Additional sources from Kelly Roncase of NJ.com with varying levels of coverage (significant coverage to less significant coverage):
      1. Roncace, Kelly (2013-10-29). "Audubon filmmaker Mario Cerrito begins shooting 'Deadly Gamble'". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.
      2. Roncace, Kelly (2014-05-10). "Woodstown native Mario Cerrito visits high school to discuss filmmaking". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.
      3. Roncace, Kelly (2015-08-12). "N.J. filmmaker shoots feature horror film 'The Listing'". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.
      4. Roncace, Kelly (2015-03-07). "N.J. filmmaker to release thriller 'Deadly Gamble' through national cable outlets". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.
      5. Roncace, Kelly (2015-03-24). "'Deadly Gamble:' N.J. filmmaker's feature film now available On Demand". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.
      6. Roncace, Kelly (2016-10-12). "N.J. filmmaker debuts first feature film at Delsea Drive-In". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mario Cerrito to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets GNG, per the sources listed above by Cunard. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I saw that the article had been recreated, I was immediately prepared to push for speedy deletion. Before I did so and after further review of the article, it was clear that Cerrito does have coverage in independent reliable and verifiable sources that is unambiguously about him and his work and that's why I voted Keep at the previous AfD (pre-DRV). The analysis that Cunard did thoroughly summarizes the review that I had done and it is abundantly clear that the notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NemesisAT, Cunard, EDDY and Alansohn. I voted "keep" in the previous AfD and Cunard's lengthy and abundant research has confirmed that Mario Cerrito is indeed sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:48, 12 March 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 Rolling Stone charts. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rolling Stone Top 100 number-one songs of 2019

edit
List of Rolling Stone Top 100 number-one songs of 2019 (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)

Also nominating:

List of Rolling Stone Top 100 number-one songs of 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Rolling Stone Top 100 number-one songs of 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Rolling Stones charts (now defunct) never received much recognition in 3rd party sources and reaching number one was never a comparable achievement as with Billboard. With only primary sources, these lists fail WP:NLIST. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parakh Madan

edit
Parakh Madan (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)

Lacks sources per WP:GNG to indicate if the roles played are significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR. ManaliJain (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the article's expansion post-AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. This has been on for a month, I'm not relisting again. We're not getting any solid decision. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLEND

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

Notability is not justified from the available references. Created by a paid/banned user. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Covert advertising. Multiple attempts of removing COI templates. DMySon (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply.
  • Assuming all the sources are reliable (except if obviously not such as a Blog or social media) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
  • As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Everything relies on information provided by the company and I'm unable to find any "Independent Content". Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with GM Voices: I think that GM Voices should be merged with this page. Ideally GM Voices redirects here and becomes a section on this page. This would give this page the heft and notability it needs and redirecting / merging this page with GM Voices would be odd given that BLEND is the owner of GM Voices. Gusfriend (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Aminlari

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

There don't appear to be any independent, reliable sources about the subject himself. There are a few affiliated sources (his own website, his own YouTube channel, the website of a company he founded), and there are a few articles of questionable reliability and independence about buildings he designed, but nothing that is both reliable and independent about him. There is an assertion that he won a National Architecture Award, but the supporting citation doesn't mention his name anywhere. Overall, I think it fails WP:GNG, but it would be good if users familiar with Persian language sources had a look. Girth Summit (blether) 15:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is hard to review Iranian sources online and determine what is independent but there should be a process for local experts to weigh in on notability and reliability of sources. Also the article is a stub and may warrant more time for contributionsInfiNeuro (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't personally object to draftification, to allow people time to look for sources. We don't tend to keep articles in article space without adequate sourcing. Girth Summit (blether) 10:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mytchell Mora

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. The article improperly cites primary sources produced by the subject to support most of its content. Most of this journalist's work was local and did not receive national attention, and a search for secondary sources that are primarily about Mora as a journalist was not fruitful. Mz7 (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Kadwani

edit
Haroon Kadwani (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)

Haroon Kadwani

The article on this actor does not establish general notability, and is also the work of blocked sockpuppets. There is also a draft, so that the article can be deleted rather than draftified. Since the acting notability guideline states that persons meeting the guideline are likely to be notable, a biography that both fails to meet general notability and was the work of sockpuppets should not be kept in article space, but should be in draft space for improvement by neutral editors. A review of the references shows that none of them can be considered secondary coverage:

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 thenews.com.pk About Ruposh, passing mention of subject Yes No Yes No
2 dailytimes.com.pk A puff piece for Ruposh that reads like an advertisement, passing mention of subject No No Probably No
3 imdb.com Profile of subject Yes Yes No No
4 divaonline.com.pk Another puff piece for Ruposh No No N/A No
5 dailypakistan.com.pk About leading lady in Ruposh, passing mention of subject Yes No Probably No

Also, the subject only marginally satisfies acting notability, with two leading television film roles, and two previous secondary television roles that are not major. Both of the articles on leading television film roles were also written by now-blocked sockpuppets. (I have tagged them as needing review for COI.) The puppeteers may be trying to create a walled garden, but that is a concern beyond the scope of this AFD. This article does not establish general notability. This article and the film articles are tainted by sockpuppetry. This article should be deleted. In view of the history of prior creation and deletion of articles on the subject, the title should be given Extended-Confirmed Create protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shanti Niketan, Delhi

edit
Shanti Niketan, Delhi (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)

Just advertising for a neighborhood. No significant independent coverage. Fails WP:GEOLAND — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Drunk Snot Bread

edit
Pop Drunk Snot Bread (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 album. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify until actual reliable sources emerge. These? no. 1 and 3 are about word-for-word identical, and both are in the form of basic news announcements, not more. no. 2 is someone's instagram page. no. 5 streams 2 songs but says very little about the album. no. 4 is about the wrestler and how she loves the band and they wrote a song about her - but it's not significantly about the band, the album, or even the song. This all seems like regular, pre-issue publicity but I don't see any "in depth" sources. Lamona (talk) 05:14, 10 March 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! 23:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Parikh

edit
Himanshu Parikh (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 sufficient coverage for notability. Lot of information is there. But, I feel it is not clear why they are notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think these sources have sigcov which is required for notability usually. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In InfiNeuro's vote, the first source doesn't count toward notability, and I am unable to judge the Times article due to the paywall. However, the first of the two books cited as a reference in the article [19] does provide significant coverage. I am unable to judge the second book [20] due to its language, but found this bio [21] on the same site. Although this barely passes GNG, I believe that because of the subject's significant accomplishments and accolades, as well as the relevant (pre-internet) dates, further research must be conducted, especially in offline sources, to sufficiently demonstrate that the article should be deleted. Toadspike (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found two more sources. The first is much more valuable than the second [22] [23]. I am not sure if the first can be considered "independent", although the second likely can. Regardless, I still think searching offline sources is advisable. Toadspike (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge cited information into Slum networking. Not enough information on Parikh for his own article, but he did come up with the concept. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavesh Balchandani

edit
Bhavesh Balchandani (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)

It is correct that this person has played many roles. But, all these roles are minor. So, it should be deleted. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there's a pretty strong assertion of notability in the article already, as the winner of what appears to be a notable award for Indian TV, and the number of roles seems solid enough to meet our requirements. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is not a big award at all. There are so many awards for TV and film actors these days. Also, just having award is not making him notable too. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The award isn't notable as Laptopinmyhands has said. The single lead role isn't enough for NACTOR, even if one season of an Indian TV series is considered significant. The references are either the usual ToI churnalism fare or outright interviews and not enough for WP:GNG. Hemantha (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson (typeface)

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

Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. (t · c) buidhe 19:07, 27 February 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 00:33, 7 March 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 Comilla Cantonment. ✗plicit 14:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comilla Cantonment High School

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

WP:NORG concern. Even when searching "ক্যান্টনমেন্ট বোর্ড বালক উচ্চ বিদ্যালয়" I was unable to find any WP:ORGDEPTH coverage. Appearing in lists of secondary schools is not enough to pass the guideline. The Bangla Wikipedia article doesn't cite any ORGDEPTH sources either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? Is this school related to the cantonment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be fine as per above Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:59, 7 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_7&oldid=1077191956"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy