Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 23

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 redirect to UGS Corp.. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teamcenter

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

Hi, I propose deletion unless something encyclopedic with references can be added. The software is now part of Siemens PLM and should be rightfully mentioned and cited there as a product. The Siemens PLM page could be further structured to mention take overs from UGS etc. This page is too minimal and since initiation did not improve either and will very unlikely receive a notable content increment. KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. 17387349L8764 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 17387349L8764 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 23 September 2021 (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 10:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sohan Thakur

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

Non-notable casting director. Some minor coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 15:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Research Foundation to Cure AIDS

Research Foundation to Cure AIDS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

They seem never to have actually discovered or even developed anything, but have a license to use a patented technology to do so. The article serves mainly to hold links to the notable scientists who have actually worked in this specific area, and to discuss the need for the treatment they hope to eventually commercialize, and to say why the potential treatment would be important if they ever do commercialize it. In other words, this is pure PR DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
repeated below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This organization is the first and only research organization with a license to cutting edge biotechnology in the field of curing AIDS. Curing AIDS is a new endeavor. There are a small number of groups in this areas, and this is the only one where it's creators, including myself, decided to move forward on a charitable basis. That is notable not only in the field of curing AIDS, but as a new model for medicine. Practically each sentence is backed by references and citations. If there is anything that is in a PR tone, then that should be corrected. However by disappearing the article, a notable if early-stage effort of significant dimensions will be eliminated.

The following statement is taken from guidelines on Wiki about deletion of pages, two such references are provided further below in satisfaction of this requirement to keep pages: "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source."

The following two newspapers and magazines have reported reported on the subject of the wikipage for "Research Foundation to Cure AIDS," one of them in English and one in French, providing international recognition:

1) In Le Temps: https://www.letemps.ch/sciences/patient-berlin-inspire-nouveaux-traitements-contre-sida 2) Newsday: https://www.newsday.com/news/health/timothy-ray-brown-berlin-patient-focus-of-symposium-at-columbia-university-on-cure-for-hiv-1.10414465

---

I am not an experienced Wiki user and didn't remember to sign my name to the edits above, so I'm copy-pasting them and adding them again including my signature below.

--- This organization is the first and only research organization with a license to cutting edge biotechnology in the field of curing AIDS. Curing AIDS is a new endeavor. There are a small number of groups in this areas, and this is the only one where it's creators, including myself, decided to move forward on a charitable basis. That is notable not only in the field of curing AIDS, but as a new model for medicine. Practically each sentence is backed by references and citations. If there is anything that is in a PR tone, then that should be corrected. However by disappearing the article, a notable if early-stage effort of significant dimensions will be eliminated.

The following statement is taken from guidelines on Wiki about deletion of pages, two such references are provided further below in satisfaction of this requirement to keep pages: "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source."

The following two newspapers and magazines have reported reported on the subject of the wikipage for "Research Foundation to Cure AIDS," one of them in English and one in French, providing international recognition:

1) In Le Temps: https://www.letemps.ch/sciences/patient-berlin-inspire-nouveaux-traitements-contre-sida 2) Newsday: https://www.newsday.com/news/health/timothy-ray-brown-berlin-patient-focus-of-symposium-at-columbia-university-on-cure-for-hiv-1.10414465

KambizShekdar (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

The Notice about deleting this page includes the request to "Find sources", as listed below:

"Find sources: "Research Foundation to Cure AIDS" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR "

In response to this, I clicked on the "scholar" tab and searched for "Research Foundation to Cure AIDS" and the following entry appeared:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10529-021-03101-5

KambizShekdar (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

You say, "if there is anything that is in a PR tone, then that should be corrected", but that would involve rewriting the whole article. It seems that some editors here are so used to PR-speak that they can't tell the difference between promotional and neutral writing. You also use the phrases "cutting edge" and "early-stage". Wikipedia only covers established knowledge, not the cutting edge at an early stage. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The technology I referred to above as "cutting-edge" is established, it is not new. It was invented in 1999. What is new is that it, and years of research results using it, was published for the first time in 2021. The reason I referred to it as cutting-edge is because to me, that term means innovative and significant. Perhaps to you it may mean untested and unknown, but that is not the case. Also, "Early-stage" is a relative term. In 40 years of AIDS, a cure has not been the focus of efforts. In the last few years, it has been, and about a week ago, the FDA approved ots first-ever clinical trials to cure AIDS using a CRISPR based method. All efforts in the field of curing AIDS are early stage. And so what? Does that make then not notable? In fact, it makes them possibly the most significant new advance in this field in decades. KambizShekdar (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

I think you have chosen the wrong site on which to advertise your research group. Not only do we not accept advertisements (which this is, as can be seen by the incessant dropping of irrelevant names and other promotional techniques used here) but we also don't aspire to cover current, uncompleted, research. I'm sure there are many places that would happily publish your advertisement, but Wikipedia is not one of them. See WP:NOT#PROMOTION and WP:NOR. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the Nobel Prize winner who co-founded this organization and the two celebrities who served as founding board members is not name dropping. These people were involved in the organization and are listed similar to how other sites about organizations list people who have wiki pages. If you would like to give me tips about advertising, thank you but I do not need them. Research Foundation to Cure AIDS was formed in 2014 as a 501(c)3 public charity. This page is about the existence of the only public non-for-profit organization, its underlying cutting-edge cell engineering technology, and the people who created it with a mission to develop a cure on a pro bono basis.

KambizShekdar (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

Re my comment above, I meant: This page is about the existence of the only public non-for-profit organization with its own biotechnology (as opposed to a non-profit that raises funds to fund other groups), its underlying cutting-edge cell engineering technology, and the people who created it with a mission to develop a cure on a pro bono basis.

KambizShekdar (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

I have addressed each specific criticism cited and provided evidence why this organization is an established U.S. public entity formed 7 years ago, that it has an unprecedented royalty-free license to a biotechnology in its field, and with notable founders. In my comments here, my use of the term cutting edge and early stage was criticized as PR speak. I explained my use. If any other specific instances are raised for clarification, either in my comments or in the article, that would be helpful so that they may be corrected. The purpose here is to evidence a long-standing public organization that has been the first one to introduce a model to develop a bro bono cell therapy cure. This is in good faith and subjective accusations that it is PR are unfounded.

KambizShekdar (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

[[:cat=T Science and technology]]

Is there any way to ensure that editors and commentators with no connection to HIV/AIDS or prior edits to HIV/AIDS related topics are reviewing and adding to this discussion? I ask because there is significant risk or bias here. AIDS activists are highly influential. A coalition of leading AIDS activists adopted the following erroneous statement in favor of PrEP and stigma reduction efforts and opposed to a cure: "we now have the means to end the global and U.S. HIV epidemics, even without a vaccine or a cure, by dramatically reducing new HIV infections and eliminating AIDS deaths." This statement is not valid. AIDS activists are known to control information about HIV/AIDS, including policing what words are used, for instance by advocating that the term "mother-to-daughter transmission" of HIV/AIDS be replaced by "vertical transition," in an effort to reduce stigma. Based on my observations, these efforts to minimize the need for a cure and to change our language are well-intentioned efforts to reduce stigma, however they come at the risk that information about a cure for AIDS are suppressed, by AIDS activists. The group is known to be influential. The page I wrote about an organization working on a cure is at risk of attack. A problem with open-edit platforms like wikipedia is that content can become a matter of political tug-of-war. Therefore, to try to reduce the risk that this is the case here, I am asking if there is a way to engage additional reviewers who are not connected to the topic to review the concerns raised about this page. In my view, any perceived problems with this page should be flagged and corrected, but deletion of information about the existence of an established group focused exclusively on developing a cure should not be deleted due to any risk of agenda-setting by any AIDS activists.

KambizShekdar (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

I have no such preconceived view on AIDS-related issues and I'm pretty sure that DGG, who is an administrator and former arbitrator here, doesn't either. Just look at our respective editing histories. To assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so for political reasons can only lead people to think that you are the one editing for political reasons rather than just trying to keep promotion out of Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing about your background, though not necessary. I am not assuming or suggesting that any commentators here have or do not have a connection with AIDS advocacy and I respect your contributions. My concern is that the AIDS patient advocacy space is indeed a heated space, with many AIDS activists publicly taking positions against a cure for AIDS and in support of current, existing drug therapy and prevention strategies, as if this is a this-or-that war. I wanted to make it clear that there is a risk that information about a cure is suppressed. I don't know the inner workings of wiki and how pages are considered for discussion. For my part I will try to improve the article as best I can and attempt to address concerns raised here. In addition, if possible, I think a review of this discussion for input from a greater number of individuals who are not involved at all in the topic of HIV/AIDS would be helpful to try to avoid bias given the heated field.

KambizShekdar (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

Phil Berger - I am not sure why you took my comment personally. In my original statement, I simply said the following to help avoid bias, without suggesting you or anyone posting here is biased, based on the heated nature of this field:

" Is there any way to ensure that editors and commentators with no connection to HIV/AIDS or prior edits to HIV/AIDS related topics are reviewing and adding to this discussion? "

and, after explaining my concern, adding:

" Therefore, to try to reduce the risk that this is the case here, I am asking if there is a way to engage additional reviewers who are not connected to the topic to review the concerns raised about this page. "

Please be assured, I have no idea who you or other commentators on this page are or your backgrounds, and no reason to accuse you of anything. I simply want to ensure that those making the decision on deleting the page are non-interested and non-involed in the HIV/AIDS space.

KambizShekdar (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

repeated below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1) Please see this important passage from Wiki stating that "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases."

2) No one has disputed any single statement in the disputed article, the problem cited has been PR tone, and this comment is subjective and disputed.

3) The passage from Wiki below states that issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on "Wikipedia:Requests for comments"

4) I would like to submit this page to "Wikipedia:Requests for comments" but do not know how to do this. I request the others on this page who are expert editors and who are doing this to ensure accuracy of Wiki pages, to please help and submit the page for addition comments or let me know how I can do this please. Thank you.

5) The passage from Wiki about the extremity of deleting pages says that subject-involved editors can be banned from the Arbitration committee.

6) I have evidenced above how the HIV/AIDS space is a heated space with highly involved advocates, including advocates who have publicly attempted to diminish efforts to cure AIDS. This page relates to an organization and efforts relating to curing AIDS and is at risk of attack. Again, I note that the accuracy of no item on the page has been disputed by anyone, and only subjective accusations have been made. How can we be sure that no one on the Arbitration committee with an interest or involvement in HIV/AIDS advocacy is banned from the decision to ban this page?

Below is the passage and link from Wiki re the severity of deleting pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion passage reads:

Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles.

KambizShekdar (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

CORRECTION - In my point #6 above, I meant to end with:

How can we be sure that No ONE on the Arbitration committee with an interest or involvement in HIV/AIDS advocacy is involved in the decision to ban this page?

Thank you, KambizShekdar KambizShekdar (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This seems to be a blatant WP:COI as well as WP:PROMO. Looking at KambizShekdar's talk page, it's evident that this isn't the first time this article in various forms has been created, and it has been repeatedly refused. This isn't the place for self-promotion or advertising. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I successfully submitted wiki requests for comment here, both for "sci" and "style", and both were deleted. This should not be the case. Who deleted these requests?

It will be helpful to have additional reviewers review this page so that a consensus can be reached.

KambizShekdar (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:WALLOFTEXT and WP:BLUDGEON. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KambizShekdar: If you had looked at the history for this page you would have seen that I removed the three {{RFC}} templates. At the best of times, using three in the same discussion is two uses too many; but this is an AfD, and the RfC process is not for deletions. The AfD process in use here is, by its very nature, a request for comment - of a specialised kind. I also removed the single instance of {{RFC sci}} - because it does not exist; and for the same reason, I am removing the two instances of {{RFT}} above. Please do not try to subvert the AfD process again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My affiliation as Founder of Research Foundation to Cure AIDS is fully disclosed and public and on my username page bio. The identify of any editors and their own involvement in AIDS advocacy is what has not yet been addressed, and the risks of this, as described above.

KambizShekdar (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did address that, and I was one of only two editors who had disagreed with you at the time that you asked. Please just stop looking at this through a totally unjustified political prism and accept the obvious that your article is written completely promotionally. If you want to know which sentences are promotional then it's sentence one, sentence two, sentence three and so on until the last sentence that you wrote. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to figure out how to add requests for comments from sci and style editors to the page. I hope that all can agree that having more editors review the disputed and subjective claim that this article is PR is a healthy thing to do when the purpose here is to reach a consensus. I have stated above how the AIDS advocacy space is heated, including activists who publicly aim to diminish a cure. I am all for improving the article. What I think we should all be for as well, is ensuring that those who are in a position to delete this page have no COI of their own: No one who is involved in or has an interest in HIV/AIDS advocacy should be included as an Arbitrator making a decision about deleting this page. No one has cited one single factual error with any of the content in this page. It should be possible to improve any perceived faults without deleting the page altogther.

KambizShekdar (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil - sorry about that - I meant making sure that the "Arbitrators" deciding on whether or not to delete the page are free of COI. No issue on my part what so ever if people hostile to a cure are commenting here - what I think we should all care about is that no one opposed to a cure is making the deletion to delete this page.

Thank you, KambizShekdar (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am not hostile to a cure. Please don't imply that I am. But I am hostile towards advertisements on Wikipedia. Surely, with your PhD, you have enough intelligence to see that this article is an advertisement from start to finish? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ORGSIG. Yes, the topic is significant (AIDS), but that doesn't guarantee that the organization is. I see no significant coverage by 3rd parties. Additionally, perusal of the IRS tax returns shows that the organization does not have any significant activity going on, so there's no hope that this could be made into a notable topic. Form 990 . shows that the organization is spending $10-15,000/year.
rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement is taken from guidelines on Wiki about deletion of pages: "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source."

The following two newspapers and magazines have reported reported on the subject of the wikipage for "Research Foundation to Cure AIDS," one of them in English and one in French, providing international recognition:

1) In Le Temps: https://www.letemps.ch/sciences/patient-berlin-inspire-nouveaux-traitements-contre-sida 2) Newsday: https://www.newsday.com/news/health/timothy-ray-brown-berlin-patient-focus-of-symposium-at-columbia-university-on-cure-for-hiv-1.10414465

Additionally, Phil, once again, I didn't mean to imply you have any bias re curing AIDS. The only point I am making in this connection is that we should ensure that no person with any interest or involvement in HIV/AIDS advocacy is the person making the decision to delete this page.

Hope that helps, KambizShekdar (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST FOR HELP FROM EXPERIENCED WIKI USERS:

I am learning more about wiki but still a relative novice. Does anyone know if there is a committee or persons who review for good faith activity in discussions to delete a page? I ask because the most vocal critic here, Phil Bridger, has ended each and every one of his comments with a personal attack or negative statement about me. Also, his main criticism is a subjective one and when asked to provide any more detail so that the article can be fixed, his response is that the faults start with the first sentence and with every sentence after that until the end. I believe that if this page is up for discussion, then the commentators should take care to make their comments in good faith. This does not to me seem to be good faith. Is there a panel or person at Wiki who can review the process used to delete this page here?

Thank you, KambizShekdar (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:KambizShekdar Please read WP:BLUDGEON and follow the advice there. Thanks. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Responding (piling on?) here because of a malformed notice at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming following the addition of the RfC template to the article page. This page is like a poorly formatted brochure seeking supporting donations, talking about AIDS in general, the need for treatment, focus by the NIH, etc. But we're not here to attract venture capitalists, and having the page be created by the subject org's founder is blatant and unacceptable WP:COI. Further, the organization doesn't seem to have done much, but, boy, someday... well, we can wait. Fails WP:ORGSIG in that sources are not writing in-depth stories about the foundation. Les Temps includes about 1-1/2 paragraphs (generously measured) on it in the middle of a longer piece about the science; the Newsday source mentions it only in reference to the symposium, with some quotes of Shekdar and another RFTCA worker. It'd be nice if the foundation achieved something, someday, but it hasn't yet (except maybe getting their malformed brochure on our online encyclopedia). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the possible benefit of the closer and because KambizShekdar pinged me due to concerns I might !vote without recognizing their flurry of changes on 26 September: I am more convinced than ever that the article should be deleted, for WP:PROMO and the other reasons already mentioned. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would seem superfluous at this point. but I think it's necessary to alert the contributor to the fact that even once the article is removed, as it surely will be, this discussion will remain visible indefinitely. When the organization does have an approved product, it will very likely be notable, and I suggest that they use a professional PR agency for their PR; any responsible person in PR will tell them that they should wait for a WP article until someone unaffiliated with the organization writes one. We have quite a few experienced editors who are not likely to miss a notable discovery in this field.
But I do have a question for him: I'm certainly aware of activists who want to ensue that we continue and improve and make more available existing methods for prevention and treatment of AIDS in the interval before a cure or vaccine is available. I am not aware of anyone who suggests that trying to find a cure is undesirable., rather than merely unlikely in the immediate future. So what are you referring to? It would be good to get some actual information out of this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without repeating the full context which is provided above, I note that:

1) no one has addressed my simple question about whether and how we can ensure that the person or persons who ultimately decide to delete this page have no conflict of interest in this space and no interest in HIV/AIDS advocacy;

2) no one has disputed a single statements made in the wiki page for Research Foundatino to Cure AIDS;

3) the subjective critism of PR tone are disputed;

4) Wiki guidelines say that deletion of a page is done only in extreme situations, providing several alternative measures, one of these is to invite additional requests for comments by others, but when I tagged and inserted wiki requests for comment for "style" and "science" categories inviting such comment, these tags were deleted;

4) While Wiki guidelines provided above say that pages are only deleted in severe instance and suggest a number of alternative methods to improve a page, including inviting others to review and comment, my attempt to engage additional users was deleted and no other attempts have been made here.

I realize that a fault with open edit platforms like wiki is that they can become political tug-of-wars and a human numbers game. I hope that this message reachers expert wiki users who may help to improve the article instead of the massive effort we are seeing to delete the page based on subjective and disputed criticisms.

Thank you, Kambiz KambizShekdar (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the political intrigues and conspiracy theories and try to WP:AGF. If anyone here has a conflict of interest, it is you, the person who founded the organization about which you then wrote this article. When you are concerned that someone here may have aninterest in HIV/AIDS advocacy with the implication that it will affect the outcome of the deletion discussion, then you are suggesting that some Wikipedia editor(s) don't want HIV/AIDS to be treated/cured/improved. And that, sir is rubbish. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a simple question - I still see no response to it from anyone:

Is there any process to ensure that the person or persons who ultimately decide to delete this page have no conflict of interest in this space and no interest in HIV/AIDS advocacy. Please see above.

KambizShekdar (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We know that at least one person in this discussion has a conflict of interest - you. As for the rest, the principle is that enough people look at AFDs that it's unlikely they ALL have a COI, and those who do will be obvious. There is no single arbiter who makes a decision, on wiki we work based on consensus - which does not require unanimity. So far, among the three people who have added a specific "!vote" (specialized wiki terminology), there happens to be unanimity.
I will mention a concern you need to address; your own access to Wikipedia. You have been consistently violating standards of conduct in this discussion, which puts you at risk of being blocked. In the discussion above, numerous wikipedia policies and essays have been pointed out to you, notable among them: WP:AGF, WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:WALLOFTEXT, WP:ORGSIG, WP:NOR. Take them time to read them all. In addition, read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA because I've seen indications that you are heading in that direction - which will be an even more direct path to getting blocked. Also please read WP:TALK, guidelines on how to use a talk page, you've already repeatedly violated those on this page. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MAJOR CHANGES MADE TO THE ARTICLE in response to the criticism of PR tone, the article is not cut by half by myself and I noticed at least one other editor.

MAJOR CHANGES MADE TO THE ARTICLE in response to the criticism of PR tone, the article is not cut by half by myself and I noticed at least one other editor. KambizShekdar (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MAJOR CHANGES MADE TO THE ARTICLE in response to the criticism of PR tone, the article is **now** cut by half by myself and I noticed at least one other editor.KambizShekdar (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added several more citations, either focused on the foundation that is the subject of the page or on its underlying technology, including the following, as well as the piece authored by myself published by the MIT public-interest science publication Undark:

https://together.mofo.com/diversity/mofo-gets-an-introduction-to-the-research-foundation-to-cure-aids/

https://sidewalkkilla.com/rftca/

https://www.biophysics.org/profiles/kambiz-shekdar

https://undark.org/2019/02/21/trump-pledge-to-end-hiv/

Additional citations were added too. Please let me know if any of the statements need any further substantiation and if the criticism of PR tone has by now been addressed. Thank you KambizShekdar (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

discuss User Tarl N., you said that three people have already voted to delete this page, but this was before the changes and additions above. Will these changes and additions be considered in case they do indeed improve the article and address the criticism of PR tone? Also, is it possible for me to cast a vote? If yes, how do I cast a vote? Thanks, KambizShekdar (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shekdar, the job of the closer is to assess what consensus, if any, has been reached in this discussion. You have made your position very clear, so it should not be necessary, but if you wish to make it even clearer you can prefix one of your comments with '''Keep''', which will put your opinion in bold. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC) User:Phil Bridger thanks for that tip. I'll try to add that Prefix. Also, do you know who the closer ultimately deciding about deleting the page is here if that is publicly available information?[reply]

Thanks KambizShekdar (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The closer could be anyone who has not taken part in this discussion, and usually happens when a discussion has been open for at least a week. When a discussion is at all contentious then it is usually recommended that the closer should be an administrator. If the close goes against the consensus reached here it can be appealed at WP:DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:KambizShekdar|KambizShekdar]] ([[User talk:KambizShekdar|talk]]) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC) [[User:DDG]] [[User:rsjaffe]] [[User:Redrose64]] [[User:Phil Bridger]] [[User:Tarl N.]] Hello All, thank you for your comments. I tried to make a best-effort to improve the article, including by deleting about half the content in an effort to address PR tone and by adding several new citations some listed above. I can't see who voted to delete it but wanted to let you know about the changes in case you can take a look again to see if your concerns are addressed. If there are still issues with the article, I would appreciate any input what remains to be corrected. Thanks, Kambiz [[User:KambizShekdar|KambizShekdar]] ([[User talk:KambizShekdar|talk]]) 16:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC) KambizShekdar (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am tagging you twice - not too familiar with the coding here and if I did it properly the first time - in case you may have already voted on deleting this page, I wanted to alert you about the significant changes I made, as described above, in an attempt to improve it. Also, for the Closer, please note, I tried to highlight my final comment directly above as "Keep". Thanks all for your review and consideration. User:DDG User:rsjaffe User:Redrose64 User:Phil Bridger User:Tarl N. User:JohnFromPinckney User:Shellwood KambizShekdar (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG I had a typo in your user name. As you initiated the discussion to delete this page, I wanted to let you know about my attempts to improve it, esp if you already voted to delete. Please see above. Thanks, KambizShekdar (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, RFTCA's work is not limited to its science and technology. RFTCA, the subject organization of the page proposed for deletion, has also made significant contributions to help prioritize the development of a broadly-applicable cure as part of the US national effort, as now noted on the page. I wanted to comment on this as someone spoke about the organizations accomplishments to date and helping to achieve high-level national support for a cure is a significant and noteworthy achievement in and of itself. KambizShekdar (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yes, you have greatly clarified what the foundation does; but in doing so, you have demonstrated that it is not notable. The two patients mentioned were cured of Aids through bone marrow transplants, but the transplants were administered to cure other diseases, and the work of the foundation had nothing directly to do with them--except that their cure indicated a direction for further directly relevant scientific work to follow, work which the foundation supports. (They are not the only organization working along these lines) . The efforts of the foundation have not led to any actual therapy so far, but rather are based upon promoting a patented technology developed entirely independently of the foundation and long before it was even started, but assigned to the foundation by its very notable inventor. Many organizations advocate finding a cure for AIDS, and it is true that this cause has been somewhat sidetracked in public visibility by the Covid pandemic. All the specific work that the foundation has done, besides accepting a gift and applying for a grant, has been 1. a discussion with Bernie Saunders in which he supported finding a cure for AIDS, 2. Hosting an advocacy symposium to promote the search for a cure, and 3, sponsored an afterparty at the NYC Village Halloween Parade. (all 3 supported by very weak sources, and I think there are better--but no source could make any of these 3 significant ) . In other words, the foundation has done nothing noteworthy so far. The only reason they might have for an article here is a desire to promote their work. I did make a mistake in listing this for AfD. I should have listed it for speedy deletion it as G11, entirely promotional. (or even deleted it myself, but I think it's generally better to ask another admin to confirm) Possibly I was impressed by the famous names, and didn't realize how little they had to do with any actual work of the foundation. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every single group that is working to develop a cure for AIDS is most highly notable. 18 months of COVID and we have multiple vaccines. 40 years of AIDS and the disease festers. The deletion of even the existence of a wiki page for a public US 501(c)3 charity with biotechnology in this space would be a mistake and an abuse of the wiki process. KambizShekdar (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying we have to keep the page about your noble-minded foundation for moral or health reasons, because otherwise, cures might not be found (or found as fast). Am I reading you right? But here's what you seem to be missing: we are an encyclopedia, not an organization intent on fostering biotechnological advances. And your RFTCA is a research foundation, not an encyclopedia. Theabuse of the wiki process is IMO you trying to preserve an article about a non-notable organization (in part by badgering the participants here). Let the wiki process play out, and when the RFTCA has results and attention which do qualify it for inclusion here, somebody (else!) will be sure to write an article about it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neowin

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

The previous AfD conducted about the article concluded that this blog was notable because of the number of Google hits it received. Now this is not part of WP:GNG, I do not think this blog has enough coverage by independent, reliable sources to be worthy of an article. pinktoebeans (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm getting a lot of hits in my university library search. As a blog it's unusual in that peer reviewed journal articles and main stream media have quoted it as a source of information in a large number of publications since it began in 2000. What makes finding significant coverage difficult is that it is widely cited; so news, google books, scholarly publications, etc. that use it as a source are going to come up in large numbers to the point that it drowns out any coverage where Neowin is the main subject. To my mind, this indicates that it's a notable; simply because a blog rarely gets elevated to this degree within media and academia. 4meter4 (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it has been quoted by a large number of peer reviewed articles and mainstream media.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:WEBCRITThe content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Sandberg

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG yet. Geschichte (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 24 September 2021 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wakulla Beach, Florida

Wakulla Beach, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article states itself: "This was a platted town that was supposed to bring tourists and visitors to northern Florida. Only a couple of houses remain. A hotel ruin is also visible, dating to the 1920s. There is no beach per se, a very shallow bay. No amenities at this spot in the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, at the end of a very long dirt road."

Coordinates lead me to a forested area near a bay with a few houses. Florida Place Names calls it a school (??). I don't think this is a community. wizzito | say hello! 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:45, 23 September 2021 (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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Gum Head, Florida

Sweet Gum Head, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks to be at a crossroads with a few buildings nearby. Florida Geographic Names calls it a lake. Likely not a community. wizzito | say hello! 20:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that newspaper sources provided are enough to meet notability standards. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York, Florida

New York, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coordinates lead me to a field with a few houses nearby and a church named New Bethel. Florida Geographic Names calls this a locale. A bit hard to find information considering the community has the name of a U.S. state, but I don't think this was ever a community. wizzito | say hello! 20:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:24, 23 September 2021 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbaz Amin Khan

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

Most of the coverages are paid. There are Brand post tag on those news coverages. Fails WP:GNG. Trakinwiki (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommandN

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

The show does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Neither of the previous deletion discussions provide reliable secondary sources with in depth coverage of the topic. All the previous arguments to keep the article pretty clearly fall under one of various WP:ATA. Practically nothing links to the article and considering that there were multiple hosts there is not a clear redirect target. It's worth noting that some of the hosts and guests of the show might be notable, but the show does not WP:INHERIT that notability. The show also doesn't appear to have won an award. Searching Google News, Google News Archives, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com yeild only passing mentions that only demonstrate that WP:ITEXISTS. The only source I could find is this book called Smarter, Faster, Cheaper. The Wikipedia page claims the show was in the 2006 print edition of Wired, but it's not even cited and even if it was a really good source I'm not sure it would really demonstrate WP:N. If someone has access to that source and it's just a passing mention it would make the decision to delete even clearer. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NWEB. "When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Gentleman wiki (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2021 (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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Krein

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

Non notable physician , still an Assistant professor, with scientific papers that do not meet WP:PROF (citations: 59, 49, 32). The firm where he's a medical director is non-notable , the only public position he's ever had is being on the board of directors of the family foundation of his spouse's family. He is reported to advise his father in law, but has no official position and I do not see how he would be qualified for one. The need for some content has driven the article to include that he "attended the official kickoff at the University of Pennsylvania"

I accept that we usually include the immediate family of a head of state, because there is usually enough public interest (though we have only about 2/3 of the children of US Presidents--see List_of_children_of_the_presidents_of_the_United_States --we have deleted the articles on Obama's children and on Barron Trump. But Krein is not even the child of a head of state, but the spouse of the child of a Head of State, and therefore not part of the immediate family--not a biological relation at all. Any coverage not just a mention in an article about his wife's father, would thus be human interest tabloid style coverage, and that's not he purpose of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Family mebers of heads of state are notable figures. Also Krein is a noted entrepreneur and famous physician in his hospital and area. He is frequently mentioned in Joe Biden's own books as a key figure in the family who Joe would often go to for advice. and frankly relatives of presidential figures are notable by being related. if Valerie Biden Owens has an article then Howard Krein should have article as well.
  • Delete. No indication of notability at all; closest claim is being a twice-removed family member from Joe Biden. I disagree with the assertion that family members of heads of state are inherently notable; that flies in the face of WP:NOTINHERITED. TJRC (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While not all keep reasoning is policy-based, there is sufficient dissent on notability grounds that currently on those grounds it remains in need of further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per DGG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. This was listed in the wrong place by arguing about NACADEMIC instead of GNG. See comments by hroest and others. I also think this should not have been re-listed when there was enough to close this AfD as "no consensus" or "keep". Keeping the red banner up for longer only does more harm than good. Dr. Universe (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Indy beetle pointed out above, WP:NOTINHERITED says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. So we need to assess whether Klein meets GNG. With there being 23 sources cited in the article, I do wonder how many reviewers get to their tenth duff citation and assume that the others are probably just as bad and therefore GNG is not met. In this case, just two or three qualify as in-depth, independent coverage by a reliable source - see my assessment of all 23 at Talk:Howard Krein#Notability assessment. Therefore, I would say that the WP:BASIC threshold has been passed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and per User:Curb Safe Charmer's careful source assessment. Looking at the sources (particularly the ones assessed as in-depth and independent) confirmed CSC's assessment for me. No pass of WP:PROF evident, but none is needed if other notability is present. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2021 (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) Goldsztajn (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Taylor (moderator)

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

I didn't find any reliable sources for Thomas Taylor. It doesn't meet with WP:GNG. And ref no. 1, 2 and 4 is bare urls. I searched 'Fasti Ecclesiastae Scoticana by Hew Scott' but didn't find anything. And ref no. 3 doesn't significant coverage. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 18:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 18:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being the elected leader of a national church is a strong indication of notability. Importantly, references do not have to be online to be valid. References 1, 2 and 4 are not bare urls. They are references to a series of printed books, Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, a "multi-volume dictionary which chronicles the succession of ministers in Scotland since the Protestant Reformation of 1560". This page verifies that he held the position. Receiving an honorary doctorate is a strong indication of notability. Here is another verification that suggests more information can be found at Volume IV, page 255. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson Mill, Florida

Henderson Mill, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A few buildings near a creek (Thomas Mill Creek). I don't think this was ever a community. wizzito | say hello! 16:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 16:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 16:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does GNIS error have to do with Wikipedia? Nothing, actually. Wikipedia does not base it's entries on whether GNIS is correct or not and shouldn't since it is completely independent of it's sources & references.Djflem (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, in this case it looks like someone misinterpreted a census precinct rather than a GNIS entry as an unincorporated community. –dlthewave ☎ 17:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NGEO does not pertain to this place.Djflem (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It falls under WP:GEOLAND #2.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher Corner, Florida

Fisher Corner, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A literal road corner. Not many buildings nearby. Not a community. wizzito | say hello! 16:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 16:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 16:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not base it's entries on whether GNIS is mislabeled or not.Djflem (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain, Topoview is usually one of the first places I check in my WP:BEFORE search and in this case the maps show the same single building in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection from 1944 through 1990. Did you find a map that shows otherwise? –dlthewave ☎ 03:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline does not apply here.Djflem (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does in Geoland 2. Lightburst (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is Geoland 2? Do you meet the second bullet of WP:GEOLAND? If so, it specifically states it's a case by case basis. – The Grid (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Florida Geographic Names calls it a [Locale (geographic)|locale]]. Do you believe that's the same as an unincorporated area? –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 25 September 2021 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Durbin Crossing, Florida

Durbin Crossing, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A literal road crossing located in the same exact place as St. Johns. I don't think this is a community. wizzito | say hello! 16:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 16:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 16:43, 23 September 2021 (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 Bald Point State Park. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Point, Florida

Bald Point, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coordinates give me a boat ramp near Bald Point State Park. I don't think this was ever a community as the article claims. wizzito | say hello! 16:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 16:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 16:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is obviously WP:SIGCOV of specific cases of footballers' contracts, but there is no agreement on whether these suffice as significant coverage of the topic as a whole. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association football contracts

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG and seems to be WP:! dashiellx (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems extremely likely based on a cursory search that sports player contracts, and possibly football specifically, are a notable subject. (See eg. [6][7].) Is there an article you would consider a suitable merge target until there is enough content for this article not to be a stub? It could make sense to tie this in to a broader topic where it could be cultivated or whatever rather than leaving it languishing on its own, but absent an obvious merge target, it should be kept. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Roscelese:I looked for an article on sports contracts generally and did not see one. Nor did I see articles on baseball contracts, gridiron football contracts, basketball contracts, etc. I would think an article on Sports Contracts would be notable, but a separate article for each sport would seem excessive to me. --dashiellx (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:How is an association football contract more notable than a baseball contract or any other sport. Articles do not exists for those either. I would see the value of an article on Sports Contracts of which this article would be a part of. --dashiellx (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, someone might wish to move the article to some variation of sport contract and expand it to cover other sports. That isn't an argument for outright deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moving and expanding would be more appropriate than keeping this article. I just let this sit for now to let others have a say. --dashiellx (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2021 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romanovsky and Phillips

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

nn musicians, 46 google hits Lembit Staan (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First off, this is a perfect example of how not to write an AfD nomination (see WP:GHITS). Second, was a BEFORE done on this? There's stand-alone article coverage from multiple RS (not just mentions): The Bay Area Reporter, which calls them "groundbreaking" here; the Los Angeles Times, which stated they were at the "forefront of gay-oriented music" here; The Advocate here; and the Dallas Observer, which stated the act had been together 14 years as of 1996 here. They received a Heritage Award from Outmusic in 2003 (ref here); their CD Brave Boys was a best seller according to The Advocate (refs here and here). Their music is also referenced in LGBTQ academia (as seen you536&bih=722&dpr=1.25 here). Easy keep for me. --Kbabej (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lembit Staan WP:GHITS is listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; thus its not an instruction to do but an instruction not to do. Read WP:BEFORE.4meter4 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2021 (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 Kølig Kaj. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solgt Ud!

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

Should be redirected to Kølig Kaj. I was unable to locate any reviews, in English or Danish, which would meet independent notability for this article. Further, as currently written this article is currently completely uncited and likely contains original research (sample language indicating OR: "It is quite a normal type of rap album for its day"). A previous attempt to redirect by another editor was reverted. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom, most of this is WP:OR. The album seems to get a mention inSkyum-Nielsen, Rune (2006). Nr. 1 - Dansk Hiphopkultur Siden 1983. p. 119. ISBN 8775141566. From the preview on Google Books, it doesn't look in-depth enough to write a standalone article off but this might be used in the artist's article. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (with optional merge a little of the content if it is verifiable). The sources here are not good enough and notability is not close to being demonstrated. My first thought was to see if there was a Danish article with more details and better sourcing on it, but there isn't one at all. The Google searches don't look promising. Admittedly it is in a language that I don't understand and also it is a common phrase that turns up in other contexts but even if you add the artist's name to the search it isn't showing significant RS coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kølig Kaj for the reasons stated by everyone above. I am also suspicious of the rapper's notability but that is another discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With the Kolig Kaj article. It contains information which is verifiable via the album itself. Kolig Kaj is a notable rapper as he appeared in the 1997 Eurovision Song Contest. Cexycy (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kølig Kaj. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kølig Kaj.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2021 (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 10:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TMRO

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The Wired article contains less than one hundred words of content dedicated to the subject. The Twin City Live source is a permanently dead video with less written prose than the Wired article. The Star Tribune article is mostly WP:INTERVIEW material and is therefore a primary source. Searching for sources that aren’t already being cited yields trivial mentions from NBC News, BusinessInsider (WP:BI), and Space.com but there are no in-depth sources that would demonstrate WP:SIGCOV or even provide useful information for writing an Encyclopedia article without WP:ORIGINAL research. The Space Frontier source says that the subject received the “2010 Best Presentation of Space Award”. The Space Frontier Foundation does have a Wikipedia page, but it only contains bare URLs to sources that, at a glance, don’t appear to demonstrate WP:N. I don’t think this article would qualify for WP:WEBCRIT despite the award, but either way WEBCRIT states that “In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria,” and I’m not seeing independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability. Jami Higginbotham, Cariann Higginbotham, Jared Head, and Ryan Caton don't have Wikipedia articles so there isn't really a place to merge the content. It's also worth noting that even if the hosts or guests were notable this show doesn't WP:INHERIT that notability. If someone is able to scrounge up some sources or if the award is notable enough to save the article it needs some cleanup considering only two out of the fifteen paragraphs in the body of the article even contain references.

I previously nominated this for deletion here, but there was WP:NOQUORUM and no prejudice against a speedy renomination. I also forgot to include in the previous nomination the fact that there is an article dedicated to a List of TMRO Space episodes, which should probably be deleted alongside this article. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 13:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Md Belayet Hossain

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

Notability isn't inherited. No Significant coverage about this person that addresses the topic directly and in details. There is zero coverage about this person, All of sources are just passing mentions or some press release. The whole article is a (google?) translation of this & this primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 13:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Afzal Hossain (Secretary)

Md. Afzal Hossain (Secretary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability isn't inherited. No Significant coverage about this person that addresses the topic directly and in details. There is zero coverage about this person, All of sources are just passing mentions or some press release. The whole article is a (google?) translation of this primary source. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 13:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Kashem (businessman)

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

Notability isn't inherited. No Significant coverage about this person that addresses the topic directly and in details. All of sources are passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2021 (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 13:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Italia

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN.-- TheWikiholic (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
being a state head of a political party is most certainly NOT an WP:NPOL pass.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being a state head of a state level political party is most certainly NOT an WP:NPOL pass.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2021 (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 Mann+Hummel. There is consensus that this isn't a notable topic, but not consensus to delete outright. It's up to editors to determine whether they want to merge any sourced and relevant content from the history. Sandstein 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Affinia Group

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

Everything in the article is the sort of content which would be of no interest to anyone not connected with the firm--I don't think this would be of interest even to its customers.Its sourced to mere announcements--even the 2 nyt itrms are just announcement of the sale of the firm DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the sources in the article, this seems to pass the WP:GNG - this is clearly significant coverage in reliable sources. The article could be improved, of course, but it seems relatively non-promotional and certainly notable to me. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Butthe rule for business firms is no longer the very weak GNG but WP:NCORP, which excludes articles whose referencing only covers acquisitions and funding. It was intended to removejust this type of article. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except the coverage we have for this subject isn't limited to "acquisitions and funding". And the idea - clearly - is to require more substantive coverage than word-for-word reprints of press releases and mundane coverage of statutory announcements and statements that every company is required to make. That a company makes an announcement that then receives significant coverage in reliable sources, does not make that coverage routine, nor does it make that coverage not independent, nor does it make that coverage inappropriate for the purposes of WP:CORPDEPTH. But beyond all that, WP:NCORP isn't a "rule", and it doesn't supersede WP:GNG. Some people would like it to, but GNG is our baseline notability threshold. "It passes WP:GNG" is a perfectly valid argument. You're absolutely free to argue that the community should apply WP:NCORP instead (or ahead), of course. St★lwart111 09:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except "significant coverage in reliable sources" is only half of the requirement, it must also contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND and when you strip out the information provided by the company and connected people, what's left says nothing. And when you say NCORP isn't a "rule" ... well neither is GNG, they're both guidelines with the same standing, GNG may be the "default" in the absence of a guideline for a specialty topic but even if you want to go down that road, there's the WP:SNG section found in GNG which explicitly explains why speciality guidelines exist in the first place and it doesn't say "Ignore them if you don't like them". They are just as much a part of our community-driven consensus-derived process and GNG. So if you're one of the NCORP haters and want to return to only having to refer to GNG, you'll also have to ignore that part of GNG which explicity mentions thestrict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. And for sure "It passes GNG" is a valid argument at AfD and has been used to great effect by a certain cabal of "Keep" !voters, but if you check their AfD stats you'll start to see their !voting stats are very poor - that is the company you will be keeping. While it is up to each closer to decide on which arguments to include, the least we (the experienced editors who are trying to improve the project) can do here is make sure we're arguing honestly with the guidelines in mind. If you don't like the NCORP guidelines - and it is clear you don't - then argue for change rather than pollute AfD with deliberate and disruptive avoidance of NCORP. HighKing++ 21:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course its independent; they didn't interview themselves. And arguments as to deletionist cabals running Wikipedia should be taken with a bucket of salt. We've seen attempts to apply WP:NCORP to all sorts of things of late (including sporting teams and geographic locations). That doesn't make it sensible. St★lwart111 05:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per commentary above and the extensive coverage available online (which is exactly what you would expect for a company with 10,000+ employees). The fact that executives of the company are are asked for their opinion of subjects completely unrelated to the company's primary business (like here in CIO (magazine)) suggests the company is notable among non-industry peers. Ironically, I think it probably passes WP:NCORP anyway, but it certainly passes WP:GNG. St★lwart111 09:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You've gone off the rails if you think a circular argument of "Oh, that company must be notable because their company executive was interviewed in a magazine because they surely only asked that executive's opinion because the company is notable". HighKing++ 21:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the basis of our notability guidelines (all of them) is that something has been the subject of note by people beyond Wikipedia. All of our guidelines are different variations of tools to assess the extent of that note. Those that are not the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent sources are generally considered to have gone unnoticed, or to have made a contribution to their field that isn't worthy of note. As such, when something tries to promote itself, it isn't worthy of note, and hasn't been noticed by others; it has drawn attention to itself. When someone independent seeks information about a subject (even when they ask someone connected to the subject, because how else are they going to be sure the information is accurate?) they have taken note of the subject. We, in turn, reference a subject having received "significant coverage"; that is, the notice the subject has received is genuine and specific, and not just a passing glance (like when something is listed along with a bunch of other similar things or receives incidental routine coverage). When someone interviews someone about something (a perfectly normal journalistic practice, in fact, the very basis of modern journalistic practice) they are giving note to that something and have spent their own time and effort (independent of the subject) to find out more about that subject. The fact that they chose to ask an expert on that subject does not make them no longer independent, does not make the person they interviewed the "source" (which remains the journalist and publication), and does not make the coverage promotional. St★lwart111 05:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:58, 23 September 2021 (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) Coolperson177 (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrizia Polliotto

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO this is WP:ADMASQ. I was almost fooled by "In August 2021, Forbes named Patrizia Polliotto among the top four women who have brought prestige to the world of corporate responsibility in Italy" but WP:FORBESCON applies. Also WP:NOTLINKEDIN FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has some sources that show notability, she is more searchable than alot of articles on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.185.141.212 (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:38, 23 September 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gantiadi (journal)

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

De-PROD'd and sources were added, however, they're all trivial mentions and don't constitute SIGCOV that would meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NPERIODICAL. I tried adding the names of its editors in Georgian to my Georgian-language search but didn't get anything substantive about the journal. It doesn't have an article on Georgian wikipedia to pull from either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. My impression (from its brief mentions in English-language encyclopedia surveys of Georgian literature) is that it's one of the most notable cultural journals in Georgia, but that Georgia is not generally well-served by English-language sources, especially online. I don't know Georgian. The decision would benefit from a Georgian-language speaker.Dsp13 (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for now. I don't speak Georgian and cannot read their script, so I have to limit myself to sources in languages that I understand. Unfortunately, those sources are absolutely insufficient: just a few in-passing mentions and one of those claimed to be incorrect at that. If somebody speaking/reading Georgian can find more meaty sources I'm willing to change my !vote, but for now we have nothing on which we can base even the shortest article. --Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The UNESCO recognition is impressive - not many English-language journals are considered intangible cultural heritage monuments. The Georgian wiki (w:ka:განთიადი (ალმანახი)) says there is an entry for the journal in the Georgian Soviet Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, Tbilisi, 1977. - p. 681. It has been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. It is recognized by the "Culture for Development Indicators for Georgia", an initiative by European Union-Eastern Partnership Culture and Creativity Programme, funded by the European Union. The initiative is based upon UNESCO's Culture for Development Indicators methodology, which has been successfully implemented in many countries across the world. Good enough for me. It is one of just 36 intangible cultural heritage monuments in Georgia. I pumped up the article a bit. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:36, 23 September 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant J. Kanojia

Prashant J. Kanojia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of being notable per WP:JOURNALIST, WP:CRIMINAL, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 07:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything provided proves that he is a journalist now turned politician. It is not good to show him as a criminal, ref. - WP:CRIMINAL and many independent sources prove that this article should not be deleted. Trinity112233 (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been previously deleted under a slightly shorter name. I took the rationale from that. scope_creepTalk 00:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is not politician, he is journalist, known for one event, posting supposed defamatory material in a tweet and then repeating it, which is tenuous at best. scope_creepTalk 00:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is valid and the person is notable figure hence it should not be deleted 103.70.40.40 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2021 (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 Dangerous Visions. Relevant content can be merged from article history. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Test to Destruction

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) supplement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." (I'll add that I see snippets in an anthology or two introducing this, possibly written by the anthology or magazine editors that can be a bit independent, but I cannot confirm there is any WP:SIGCOV). It was deprodded with no useful rationale, so let's discuss this here. Can anyone find anything to save this? If not, the best WP:ATD would be to redirect this to the anthology Dangerous Visions or the author Keith Laumer. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:56, 23 September 2021 (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) Coolperson177 (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Langston

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

Only one single reference. Not quite sure it meets point 2 of WP:NACADEMIC. This article was created back in 2006, where the policies were more lax. Either way, does not meet WP:BLPRS either. - RichT|C|E-Mail 10:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - RichT|C|E-Mail 10:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - RichT|C|E-Mail 10:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. - RichT|C|E-Mail 10:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on citation record this passes WP:NPROF#C1.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As Eostrix says, his h-index on Scholar is given as 46, or 24 for publications since 2016; Scopus gives it as 33. We'd need some informed input on whether this is high or low for his field; he does not have a named chair or (it seems) any notable award, so this is I think the only way he could pass WP:NPROF. For the moment I'm doubtful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can look over his coauthors and calculate my usual Scopus metrics, but since the subject publishes in a broad array of fields (seemingly algorithmic approaches to bioinformatics/mathematical epidemiology, environmental science, systems engineering, op research, etc.) it will be difficult to assess relative impact as compared to others in his discipline. My hunch his that he is above the median in general, but we'll see how it pans out. JoelleJay (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep leaning due to large scholarly output, 17 papers with 100+ citations are usually enough for WP:NPROF#1 and h-index of 46. However I dont see a single clear contribution but rather many contributions over many years. --hroest 21:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of his early papers are in parameterized complexity and in particular his "Nonconstructive tools for proving polynomial-time decidability" is a classic, one of the papers that founded this area. His later work appears to have shifted to computational biology, a different subject, and while it includes his top-cited paper it's also a higher-citation field (and the top-cited one is with many coauthors), so I think the parameterized complexity work is more significant. (This is all my personal evaluation; we can't say anything like that in the article itself without a published source.) I think we can call this a pass of WP:PROF#C1 not merely on numeric grounds, but on the basis of a focused and significant contribution to an important subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks for your analysis, it would be great if some of that could flow into the article, at least the "Nonconstructive tools for proving polynomial-time decidability" paper should be listed. In computational biology I would classify his impact as less transformative (even though his papers are more highly cited). --hroest 18:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I added a couple book sources for the significance of this work. One of them lists this work as being spread over five papers, so I'm not sure citing just the one would be best; anyway, secondary sources are better than primary. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2021 (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 10:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Knuxx

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

PROD was contested by the article creator. My WP:BEFORE resulted in no more sources about the subject other than relating to his death. Notable only for one event: his death. In addition to https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/16/a-linchpin-tributes-paid-after-new-zealand-hip-hop-artist-louie-knuxx-dies-in-melbourne https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/nz-rapper-louie-knuxx-dies-in-australia/YOW3YYK6UEHPWL2AWO6Y7NBYK4/ https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/entertainment/nz-rapper-louie-knuxx-dies-during-run-in-melbourne https://tonedeaf.thebrag.com/new-zealand-hip-hop-artist-louie-knuxx-has-died-in-melbourne/ https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/who-louie-knuxx-all-new-zealand-hip-hop-star-passes-away-42 https://www.uktimenews.com/new-zealand-rapper-louie-knuxx-has-passed-away-2/ https://www.msn.com/en-nz/entertainment/celebrity/nz-rapper-louie-knuxx-dies/ar-AANjaKs https://insider-voice.com/who-was-louie-knuxx-all-about-the-new-zealand-hip-hop-star-when-he-passes-away-at-42/ I found https://www.vice.com/en/article/znmgae/straight-outta-new-plymouth-louie-knuxx-traces-his-hip-hop-journey, which is written by the subject about himself. I also found https://nzmusician.co.nz/features/louie-knuxx-gentleman-gangsta/. Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2021 (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 moved to Draft:Neek the Exotic. There is a clear consensus that this subject should not exist in mainspace in its current state. It can be improved in draftspace and submitted for review, or it will ultimately be deleted there if improvement is not forthcoming. BD2412 T 18:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neek the Exotic

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

Only reference to notability is that his picture is on the cover of a (notable) album, and that he appeared on a (also notable) single of another act. Does not seem enough for independent notability. Suggesting to delete per WP:TOOSOON. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid vote. The nominator's reasoning is more complex than "simple 'not notable' grounds", after which someone else complained that the article is still being worked on. The rapper could be considered non-notable whether this article has been here for ten minutes or ten years. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Article is still being worked on. Once the creator is finished with it, then revisit what should be done after that CiphriusKane (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment - I can agree with a speedy draftify, but as it stands the article does not have claims to notability nor references that show that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly Redirect to Large Professor. It does not matter that the article is still being worked on. Sending it to draft would be a dead end because it would not pass the process of graduating to the live Wikipedia. This rapper's only reliable media coverage comes from backing Large Professor on a single song. He has a few of his own releases and guest appearances on material by a few other rappers, but those have received no coverage beyond his own social media accounts, some unreliable blog-like interviews, and the usual retail services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Or possibly redirect to Main Source (since he's mostly known for appearing on their single). There isn't nearly enough notability here to keep (or even work on) this article. Blackjays1 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know this not an easy thing to do but at least i'm trying to do so. there still enough to fill in some info Ceedub88 11:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see enough news coverage for this. Fails GNG Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The article does not meet notability criteria but there is one energetic editor who states they are currently working on. I will AGF and !vote we send it back to the drawing board with the caveat that if it is submitted too soon and ends up back here, the !vote will be a strong delete. Ifnord (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found some quality RS which could be used toward meeting MUSICBIO and SIGCOV. More importantly, one only has to look at Billboard for the months of August, September, and October 1999 to see that he had a charting single on a national music chart for 10 weeks which means he clearly passes criteria 2 of WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HIP HOP: Neek The Exotic". Muzik (40): 86. September 1, 1998. Quality independent source/ Review of album Exotic's Raw (which clearly wasn't released in 2003 as we have a review in a London magazine from 1998; there's obviously something off with that content in the article)
  • "Hot R&B Singles Sales". Billboard. 111 (37): 53. September 11, 1999.
  • "R&B: Hot Rap Singles". Billboard. 43: 35. October 23, 1999.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did some digging and found out that he appeared in the Unsigned Hype column of The Source in 1998, and he released the single (not the album) "Exotic's Raw" that year ("Unsigned Hype". The Source. 103. April 1998.) However, aside from the Muzik article, that's the only reliable source of independent notability that can be found on him — his 1999 Billboard chart appearance was as a featured guest on a Large Professor single, and his name doesn't even appear in the credits of Main Source's 1992 Billboard chart appearance. Blackjays1 (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um... @Blackjays1 His name is on the chart repeatedly for 10 weeks. I looked directly at the Billboard charts in PROQUEST, so I don't possibly see how you can claim he was not credited on the chart. Both Billboard citations above have his name on the chart for anyone to see (I could provide more examples, but I thought two were sufficient). Your claim that he doesn't appear on the chart is just flat out not true. And he gets even billing on the chart with Large Professor with their names right next to each other. If it weren't a copyright violation I would upload PDFs of the documents to prove it. 4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For a viewable proof see the Hot Rap Singles Billboard Chart on page 34 and the Hot R&B Singles Chart on page 36 which include his name: [14].4meter4 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also viewable is his name in the charts on pages 30 and 33 of this Billboard [15].4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my comment. I didn't dispute that he appeared on the Billboard charts in 1999 (alongside Large Professor). I did dispute that he appeared on the charts in 1992 (as he made an uncredited guest appearance on Main Source's single "Fakin' the Funk", which he's most known for). Simply put, he hasn't done enough in his career (independent from a Large Professor single and a Main Source single) to attain notability. Blackjays1 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Appologies for the misunderstanding.4meter4 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Blackjays1 (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:53, 23 September 2021 (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. While the consensus here clearly is to "keep" the article, I must admit that if somebody had tagged this for speedy deletion for being too promotional, I would have deleted this without giving it a second thought. Those arguing for "keep" are invited to do a thorough rewrite of this article to remove the promotional tone. Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Dubé (musician)

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

BLP without any actual references Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is very heavily advertorialized, and cites no reliable sources to actually support the content. And while the International Franz Liszt Piano Competition would probably be enough to pass WP:NMUSIC #9 ("major music competition") if the article were written and sourced properly, it isn't so highly meganotable that the need to keep articles about its winners would override the need to write and source their articles properly. And I'm also willing to reconsider if somebody with access to different databases than I've got can find much better sources to repair it with than I've been able to (e.g. media from the Netherlands, given that the notability claim is a Dutch music competition?) — but I haven't been able to find any useful new references with the tools available to me, and even the interlanged versions in French and Russian and Arabic aren't citing any useful sources either. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Winner of a major international piano competition. Clearly passes WP:NMUSIC #9 and WP:ANYBIO. Article needs improvements through editing. WP:AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither NMUSIC nor ANYBIO is passed without showing that the award in question is one that gets covered by the media. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dent, Huntley (September 1, 2014). "PARAPHRASES RUSSES". Fanfare. 38 (1): 488–489.
  • Becker (2005). "Liszt: Ballades; Polonaises; Au Bord D'une Source; 3 Morceaux Suisses". American Record Guide. 68 (4): 139.
  • Bayley, Lynn René (2012). "Choral Dorien. Préludes Profane". Fanfare. 35 (6): 176.
  • Rucker, P. (2011). "LISZT: Wagner Transcriptions. WEBER-LISZT Oberon: Overture". Fanfare. 35 (1): 337-338.
  • "OPENING NOTES/PASSAGES". Maclean's. Vol. 108, no. 25. June 19, 1995. p. 6.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:49, 23 September 2021 (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 10:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Navy Depot Command

Pakistan Navy Depot Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It seems COMDEP is a self-created page by the author. Pakistan Navy doesn't have any such command named COMDEP. They have only 7 main commands such as COMPAK, COMKAR, COMLOG, COMCOAST, FOST, COMCEP, and COMNOR. Please see the official website. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now The page says that the Depot Command is a subordinate command to COMLOG, who is clearly listed; but the COMLOG depots list / subordinate units, which is linked, does not list Depot Command. It could have previously existed, but from the information available to us, we don't know. No prejudice to recreation if references are provided showing a real period of existence. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also I have just tried to check out the Commodore Uzair Gulani who was listed as the commander - no reliable sources list a Pakistan Navy officer of that name. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2021 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Teli

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

WP:BLP1E; fails WP:NCYC.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:15, 23 September 2021 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Pines, Alabama

Seven Pines, Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coordinates lead me to a forest near a highway with a few houses. I don't think this is a community. wizzito | say hello! 06:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 06:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 06:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: - The battle was in Virginia and is unrelated to this site. Hog Farm Talk 14:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's that depth I was talking about. Switching from "comment" to "delete". jp×g 00:59, 30 September 2021 (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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moodys Crossroads, Alabama

Moodys Crossroads, Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coordinates lead me to a literal crossroads near a state highway with a few buildings. I don't think this is a community. wizzito | say hello! 06:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 06:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 06:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Topos and aerials are not terribly conclusive, as there were various buildings around; documentary evidence, however, draws a complete blank. Mangoe (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are 201 newspaper results for "Moody's Crossroads" in Alabama. It's referred to as a waypoint or landmark a few times, but also many times as a settlement. In 1924, people who lived there were being registered to vote. By 1926 there was a cemetery, and in 1932 there was a general store. In 1936, too, people were referred to as being from there. People were still living in "the Moody Crossroads community" in 2004: according to sources, it was definitely a community historically, and likely still is. I have added these sources to the article, and recommend it be re-evaluated hence. jp×g 00:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, At minimum, was a community at one point.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2021 (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 Greene County, Alabama. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crawford Fork, Alabama

Crawford Fork, Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coordinates lead to a railroad crossing with a few buildings nearby. I don't think this was ever a community. wizzito | say hello! 06:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 06:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 06:32, 23 September 2021 (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DE Photo

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

I believe this article does not meet WP:NCORP, as I couldn't find anything while searching through Google (search, news, scholar, books, newspapers). A lot of results are in French (because of 'de photo') but culling those results in very few/no hits, much less any significant or independent coverage; I have only seen the company's own pages or a couple of press releases. Zetana (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Zetana (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zetana (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zetana (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article, without substantial development since the initial creation and spate of IP edits. Although the article indicates that the firm began in 2002, sources such as this franchising listing claim that it began 10 years earlier. As to notability, the references provided are press releases and routine announcements, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH and my searches are not finding better. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2021 (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 ASC Jaraaf. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stade de Diaraf

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

Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:46, 23 September 2021 (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 MATE (software)#Components. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caja (file manager)

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

Proposing after challenged PROD; still haven't seen any indication that this software is notable under GNG. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 04:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 04:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of efforts to impeach presidents of the United States#Joe Biden. After one discounts the pure votes and the IP, who also makes no coherent argument, rough consensus s that this is not yet a notable topic because attempts to impeach presidents are now apparently somewhat routine political news. Sandstein 10:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts to impeach Joe Biden

Efforts to impeach Joe Biden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A re-creation with the only added information being further WP:NOTNEWS coverage about the latest attempt. This is already covered to sufficient encyclopedic depth (i.e. as a "summary of knowledge" and not a "everything that's in the news about the topic") at the redirect target (where the most recent information actually is also already included). So suggest redirect as last time to List_of_efforts_to_impeach_presidents_of_the_United_States#Joe_Biden. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We have one question to answer here. Are efforts to impeach Joe Biden covered by reliable sources? The answer is yes. Therefore, the subject meets the WP:GNG. Unlike the previous time this question was asked, there are now multiple efforts on record, with multiple lawmakers signed on. This is not a WP:NOTNEWS issue, as it is an historical fact that will remain in the Congressional Record long after the news cycles have faded. BD2412 T 03:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of things that will remain in Congressional Records long after the fact that don't warrant an encyclopedic article (and not just because the Congressional Record is a primary source). If the only outbursts of coverage this gets is brief bursts in the news each time somebody decides they want to get in the news, and nothing comes out of it, and the coverage does not subsist (WP:NTEMPORARY), then this is indeed WP:NOTNEWS covered to an unencyclopedic level of depth and should be redirected to avoid duplication of the page where it is covered at an appropriate level. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Something having multiple sources also does not indicate it requires a standalone article. One could reasonably find multiple sources for every subsection of Johann Sebastian Bach - does not mean that it would be productive to have a separate over-detailed article for each - WP:SUMMARY applies, and in this case, the proper way is to have a brief section at the most relevant article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The non-notable things in the Congressional Record don't receive coverage in multiple reliable sources. BD2412 T 03:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:BD2412 Thank you for having me take another look. Lightburst (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those other articles might also warrant a look. I see many bits based on primary sources (Congressional Record itself). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are the product of substantial editor participation and have collectively survived multiple AfD efforts. I would counsel against disruptive editing in that area. BD2412 T 23:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, WP:OSE is not a particularly great argument; and what I was suggesting by "might warrant a look" was pruning the bits based on primary sources: especially for the older examples, if those things haven't attracted any independent coverage in a decade, then they're likely just footnotes of not much encyclopedic importance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 Far too much conflation of news with notability. It's not about quantitative numbers (that would be List of Republican party attempts to impeach US Presidents or List of Democratic party attempts to impeach US Presidents), but whether there is an enduring notability. Republicans, for the purposes of broader short-term political strategy, have clearly adopted impeachment as a tactic rather than a goal, diminishing its historical significance and specific notability in a case-by-case basis. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether tactical or not, the coverage meets the WP:GNG. The futility or political calculatedness of the efforts does not matter any more than that of astroturfing support for the Jo Jorgensen 2020 presidential campaign (which we nonetheless cover), or the January 2018 United States federal government shutdown, or the 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit‎ (the article for which I also created). In a hundred years, this will still be a notable historical topic. BD2412 T 05:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this went out of the news cycle about as quickly as it went in, it's more likely this will be but a footnote in history. But anyway, WP:CRYSTAL predictions of what this will be are not reliable indicators whether this is encyclopedic or not (first but certainly not least because, obviously; they go both ways). Given there's no currently demonstrated long-term significance, and all of the coverage is limited to two very specific events, the argument that this doesn't warrant an article all by itself and should instead be discussed to sufficient depth at the redirect target is even more convincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, it is now three specific events (though the two September filings can easily be grouped together given the common subject matter). The January filing has been discussed again in the context of the September filings, so that one his now demonstrated a longer-term significance than the news cycle in which it occurred. BD2412 T 03:05, 1 October 2021 (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 02:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Hill, Texas

Pine Hill, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A few scattered buildings, but I can't find evidence of a community. wizzito | say hello! 01:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:42, 23 September 2021 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumer Hill, Texas

Sumer Hill, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A few spread out buildings and a church are nearby, but none with the name Sumer Hill. I don't think this is a community. wizzito | say hello! 01:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wish GNIS wasn't down, so I could figure out where they pulled this name from. This name doesn't appear on pre-GNIS small scale topos, which don't show much here. Searching in the standard places brings up a passing mention to a subdivision near Lubbock and an elementary school near Clute, but neither of those are this place. Fails WP:GNG and no evidence that WP:GEOLAND is met. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weaker delete - I had the coords off originally, and thanks to Eastmain for finding what the proper name should have been. If kept, this should certainly be moved to Summer Hill, Texas. The 1984 USGS topo (first small-scale it appears on) has "Summer Hill", and the few sources found refer to this as such. User_talk:Txstateends#Sumer_Hill,_Henderson_County,_Texas is also telling. Unfortunately, that TSHA article is way too short to prop this up on its own, and the only other things I could find were a passing mention in an obituary and a 1936 reference to diphtheria shots being given out here. Most of the hits that appear are for that subdivision in Lubbock and a defunct school in Omen, Texas. Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to be the same as Summer Hill (spelled like the season), described in the Handbook of Texas at https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/summer-hill-tx Another example of once notable, now a few houses and a cemetery but still notable. It's also a reminder that relying only on a present-day map can be misleading. Perhaps Sumer Hill should be moved to Summer Hill, Texas unless we can find evidence such as a post office name or railroad depot name that uses the single m spelling. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a community WP:NGEO. Lightburst (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Summer Hill, Texas. The Handbook of Texas establishes that it was a community, although there are little more than a few houses now. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 12:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move (the correct name, Summer Hill, can be found from the 1984 USGS quadrangle going forward). A newspaper search is confounded by other places with the same name (there are 3,207 results to sift through, few of them are likely to be about this place, and there are none in Henderson County). Nonetheless, sources exist, sources have been found, and sources have been added. While no buildings appear on 20XX topo maps, this is an artifact of the USGS transitioning to badly generated computer maps that omit many features (it shows up, labeled and with houses by it, in the 1948 and 1984 quadrangles). jp×g 23:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and move.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2021 (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 02:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swansons Landing, Texas

Swansons Landing, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coordinates lead me to someone's yard on the edge of a lake near a dead end road named Swansons Landing. There's an RV park nearby but I don't think this is a settlement per se. wizzito | say hello! 01:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tubbs Corner, Texas

Tubbs Corner, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coordinates lead to the middle of a state highway (Texas State Highway 329). I can't find any evidence of a community. wizzito | say hello! 01:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do no delete this stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100c:b01c:a59a:508a:498a:5833:e751 (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rooneys Place, Texas

Rooneys Place, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coordinates lead to a small dead-end road named Rooneys Place. No buildings. I doubt this is a community. wizzito | say hello! 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, satellites tend to be bad at picking up things that ceased to exist prior to the development of satellite technology; there are plenty of things that don't show up on satellite maps (like, for example, Semyonovsky Island). jp×g 19:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:JPxG, I looked at some older topos and the oldest one I could find from 1974 shows nothing but a small building there. wizzito | say hello! 07:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wizzito: Not that it matters here, but on TopoView you can look at surveys going back much further (for example, this quadrangle was mapped as far back at 1903). The newspapers.com searches are pretty helpful as well, and they will catch tons of stuff that Google News misses (even if you don't have a TWL subscription). jp×g 07:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Crossing, Texas

Russell Crossing, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coordinates lead to the middle of a body of water. Nothing but a park and a boat ramp is nearby. I doubt this is a community. wizzito | say hello! 01:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently a crossing of the river before the reservoir was built in 1979. Would be appreciated if the creator User:Fixer88 could contribute to the clean-up effort of incorrect articles such as this. Reywas92Talk 02:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I changed the body of the article to: Russell Crossing is a former unincorporated community in Williamson County, Texas, United States, now submerged by the creation of a reservoir, Lake Georgetown. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why would you think that's accurate either????? There's no community on the maps from before the lake, it was a river crossing like many others with this name, transposed to the GNIS in error and copied to Wikipedia in error. Reywas92Talk 14:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence or significant coverage of a community ever being here. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable former river crossing. –dlthewave ☎ 04:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Newspaper results consiste entirely of articles in which a guy named Russell was crossing something. Of course, if you Google it, you can easily find many helpful sites offering homes for sale, hiking trails, driving directions, weather forecasts, population profiles, vacation spots, spray foam insulation quotes, pressure washing quotes, gunsmiths, piano movers, hotels, air conditioning repairs, unversities, traffic accidents, pharmacies, babysitters, tree removal services, dentists, dermatologists, and the location of the Serbian embassy in an tiny village that has never been mentioned in a newspaper or any official documents, and is now submerged at the bottom of a reservoir. Don't we live in amazing times? jp×g 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Christian Place, Texas

Old Christian Place, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing here but a few buildings. I doubt this community actually exists. wizzito | say hello! 01:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't. Topo shows just the single ranch, as many of these "places" are. Reywas92Talk 02:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly just a ranch mislabeled in GNIS. No idea why the article creator thought it was appropriate to add a description of a "tiny settlement". –dlthewave ☎ 13:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Somehow, the newspaper results for this aren't confounded by thousands of irrelevant results where people are using the phrase to describe something unrelated; in fact, there are a mere ten irrelevant results where people are using the phrase to describe something unrelated. This doesn't seem to be a place, and it doesn't seem to ever have been a place, as far as I can tell. jp×g 18:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fivemile Crossing, Texas

Fivemile Crossing, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coordinates show a road/bridge over a river. I don't think this is a populated place. wizzito | say hello! 01:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 01:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nope, obviously just a river crossing, not too far from Tenmile crossing. [17] I continue to be baffled how so many users created so many articles without doing the smallest smidgeon of assessing the veracity and notability of their content. Reywas92Talk 03:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm baffled by that as well. There seem to be a huge number of such articles. Would it be too elitist to suggest that every new article needed to be approved by an administrator before it could be published? I'm not suggesting an in-depth study for every new article, just a quick check. Athel cb (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like a huge problem to me. There are lots of silly microstubs created from database information, and most of them are perfectly valid subjects for articles. For example, I originally created Fordson Island, Fox Island, Van Sickle Island and Headreach Island as GNIS stubs; all four are now GAs. Bradford Island, a GNIS microstub in its [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=978790814 first revision], is currently a 162kb long GA undergoing peer review prior to nomination as a featured article candidate. There are definitely some stinkers, but even among the GNIS stubs nominated at AfD (a sample heavily biased towards the worst ones) there are quite a few that manage to get expanded into respectable articles. jp×g 19:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the map? The user-submitted burial site is several miles West of the place we're talking about. The fivemile crossing is an unusual way to refer to a community but a common way to describe a place where a road crosses a river. –dlthewave ☎ 12:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Best I can find is this passing mention to the subject as a river crossing, although there seems to be some sort of minor archaeological site in the general area. Even if the archaeological site is notable, it's a separate location and a separate article subject. I don't put much faith in that Find A Grave link - it doesn't directly associate the unnamed cemetery with the river crossing, and doesn't even work as indication of a community. Could as well be an old family plot. Hog Farm Talk 05:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a river crossing that's used as a local landmark. Newspaper results are mostly road construction reports or things that took place "South of Fivemile Crossing" etc. Not a community, fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 12:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Search results are useless and newspaper results turn up very little; there are only thirteen of them, all of which seem to refer to it as a landmark rather than an inhabited place. The closest thing to a place name I could find was this relevant clipping by some Newspapers.com user named "Hog_Farm" (seems like a diligent fellow, perhaps we should invite them to start editing Wikipedia!) jp×g 18:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyer Crossing, Texas

Beyer Crossing, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely never was a populated place; coordinates on Google Maps give me a bridge between a creek (Dry Creek) and a few buildings wizzito | say hello! 00:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bakers Crossing, Texas

Bakers Crossing, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a populated place, from what I can tell. I can only find a few houses nearby. Likely nothing more than a simple stop or crossing. wizzito | say hello! 00:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article refers to a settler at this location, which is separate from the military base once located nearby. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:53, 23 September 2021 (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 02:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Della Russel Ocloo

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

BLP ONEEVENT -no evidence of lasting interest DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable even though she became more notable through an event she is a recognized and award winning journalists from Ghana.Owula kpakpo (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is a reporter and an award winning journalist. She became more notable through an incident and received support from various organizations in Ghana. daSupremo [talk] 00:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is one of Ghana's notable and award winning journalist Robertjamal12 (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the similarity between the three prior comments-; the award is from the Ghana Shippers Association, and I do not see the relevance - DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The award is relevant in Ghana and also the subject has been involved in notable incidents relating to the Ghanaian media and received wide coverage on that Robertjamal12 (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
not everything a government agency does is notable , we usually insist on the highest level national award in a broad field, add this is not. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Transport (Ghana) is broad and its awards are considered as a higher national award and notable in Ghana and Graphic Communications Group Limited is one of the largest news agencies in the country.Also significant news coverage exists about the subject. Robertjamal12 (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The subject is a notable female journalist in Ghana, the articles needs to be kept and rather expanded and improved to showcase the subject. Graphic Communications Group Limited is the oldest and one of largest news agencies, so being awarded the Reporter of the year at an awards which was done in collaboration with the Ministry of Transport indirectly the Government of Ghana is a notable one. Ampimd (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2021 (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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 20:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Aranda

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

Fails WP:GNG with terrible sourcing. A cursory Google search only turns up social media accounts. KidAd • SPEAK 00:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User is a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 17:23, 24 September 2021 (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/2021_September_23&oldid=1047562455"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 23, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.