Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 4

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Cabrera

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

Fails GNG. I researched a lot about the subject, and found no evidence that this subject is notable enough, the appearing websites, pages, and articles, in browser's search results, are not about the subject. The sources listed in this article are also unreliable and there are few references. —Príncess Faye (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Bala

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

like an advertisement denied by AFD; without single improvement the Creator moved it to the mainspace. @@@XyX talk 23:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep with a side of nomination withdrawn. Star Mississippi 02:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kelleher


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

Subject is a mma fighter, boxer and kickboxer. Subject fails all WP:NMMA, WP:NBOX and WP:NKICK notability requirements as well as fails GNG. Cassiopeia talk 23:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jithu Venugopal

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

Fails WP:NACTOR FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He's described as a "household name" here, but I don't know how good the source is. Anyone got any comments on that?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/malayalam/seetha-kalyanam-fame-jithu-venugopal-joins-kudumbavilakku/articleshow/89985741.cms CT55555 (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to get more participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plum syndrome

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

This doesn't seem to be an accepted term for any medical condition. PepperBeast (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete It does exist. The reference in the wiki page is very hard to access--I was unable to, but I did find another report of the same case:Plum, Claus M.; Warburg, Mette; Danielsen, Jørgen (1978). "Defective Maturation of Granulocytes, Retinal Cysts and Multiple Skeletal Malformations in a Mentally Retarded Girl". Acta Haematologica. 59 (1): 53–63. doi:10.1159/000207745. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC) My keep vote was based on a misunderstanding of notability criteria. I now revised my vote to delete. amended 16:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Existing, as defined above, it's not what we're looking for here. Notability is what we are looking for and if the only source is a 1976 paper, I think it is not notable. That it is a rare syndrome would not mean that writing about it would also be so rare. CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an argument for deletion for a disease/syndrome. See WP:HEA.Diseases that have been officially diagnosed in one or more humans, animals, or plants are notable. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HEA is part of Wikipedia:Notability (natural sciences), which is very clearly marked as a failed proposal. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for not noticing that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep About two pages of journal articles in GScholar to show it exists. Oaktree b (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only at most six of those results are about the article subject. The others are mostly about fruit or air power. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, just three of them seem to be of any real relevance-- Plum's original paper, and a couple of cites by his colleague Mette Warburg. PepperBeast (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing limitations cause me to question notability and reliability of said sources. NiklausGerard (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per improvements made and sources IDed during this discussion Star Mississippi 02:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Carpenter (artist)

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

Biography unsourced for over 15 years. BD2412 T 22:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've removed the copyvio, and documented a small number of his installations. There are many more to be added, but I'm confident that this is now a keeper. Lamona (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: The copyvio still needed to be redacted from the edit history. I have done that now. BD2412 T 23:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please judge based on improvements that have occurred since this nomination was posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Documentaries itself enough to justify WP:GNG. Washington State Arts Commission's offcial website has the artist collection records [7]. Per me, this article needs a work and respective task force needs to know about this one. @@@XyX talk 22:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is this isn't a notable topic and the material isn't suitable for a merge. Star Mississippi 02:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Peninsula Commute locomotives

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

This list fails both WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is zero evidence the subjects of this list have ever been discussed as a group by even a single reliable source. Much of this is sourced to photos which are user generated content and not reliable, or to railfan sites which have the same issue. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retired MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet for a similar article which was deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might buy that argument if there were multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage of this topic, but that is not the case here (and I notice your response did not address that point at all). I didn't prune out all the unreliable sources as I didn't want to prejudice the AfD, but almost all of them would have to go if we were to remove all the WP:SPS and user generated content which is not reliable. Caltrain#Rolling stock already exists and that's more than sufficient. Wikipedia is not in the business of documenting every single locomotive that has ever existed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, List of California railroads does not say anything about rolling stock, nor should it. I would know, I've extensively edited List of Connecticut railroads and List of Rhode Island railroads. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Arts integration. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated arts

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

WP:DICDEF. Sources in the article throw the term around but do not actually define it. This just seems to be a mishmash of random ideas with no through-line. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't clear what your arguments for deletion were. It is clearly more than a dicdef, & the sources are adequate; no doubt more are out there. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the article just a random bundle of buzzwords with no clear topic. It doesn't seem to be a thing. And that that the sources just use the term without explaining what it is. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a ton on google, including several books. The lead's (uncited) "The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts defines arts integration as "an approach to teaching in which students construct and demonstrate understanding through an art form. Students engage in a creative process which connects an art form and another subject and meets evolving objectives in both."" seems a decent definition. Or the example in the next section - drawing pictures in a history lesson (in my day we just coloured them in). I don't know about the US, but in the UK keen middle-class mums spend hours building model medieval villages for their children's "school projects". Some of the google sources are even British. It is mostly used in primary education it seems. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - in that it is defined in Elliot W. Eisner, The Arts and the Creation of Mind, page 39 here. I would delete it for being a bunch of half plagiarized academic paper doublespeak but that can be cleaned up. There is a DICDEF problem in that it seems more than one discipline calls itself "Integrated Arts", re: the stuff that comes after "It may also refer to" - Wikipedia doesn't do different things with the same name, gotta pick one. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! The waffle mother ship. Yes, better redirect there. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Forbes

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

Subject doesn't seem to pass WP:NTRACK nor WP:GNG. nearlyevil665 18:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Detailed answer in close to either List of shipwrecks in 1855#Unknown date and/or List of shipwrecks of Australia#New South Wales. Valid ATD and which target can be decided editorially if it can't be to both. Star Mississippi 02:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure (1850 schooner)

Adventure (1850 schooner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wooden boat that existed for 5 years. Can't find anything substantial to support notability, certainly not enough for GNG. AviationFreak💬 15:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here are the sources that were deleted in the "Further reading" section of Special:Diff/501678145:
Cunard (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Canada (Ontario) candidates in the 2007 Ontario provincial election

Communist Party of Canada (Ontario) candidates in the 2007 Ontario provincial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability Creuzbourg (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've just revamped this article in accordance with current standards for candidate list pages. I"ll grant that this particular page may be of little interest to most readers, but it's part of a larger series of candidate pages, covering mainstream and fringe parties of the past and present. The pages provide a service to readers and researchers in the sense of listing the occupations of candidates, allowing for a quick comparison of votes and percentages, etc. CJCurrie (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect The revised article merely duplicates Results of the 2007 Ontario general election by riding. I see no reason to have redundancy to that article just to list occupations of non-notable election losers. Reywas92Talk 23:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Results of the 2007 Ontario general election by riding is quite sufficient. Note: Even the major parties' (Liberals, PC, etc.) candidate lists all redirect to the results page. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clarityfiend. Odd and out of place to have such a separate article carved out for one relatively minor party. BD2412 T 06:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion is focusing on (i) the fact that other candidates pages for the 2007 Ontario provincial election are redirects to the general results page, and (ii) the argument that the list pages simply duplicate the information on the results page. It's technically correct that the other pages are redirects, but that's only because one particular editor (User:Reywas92) redirected all of the pages in question after this afd was posted. Until a short time ago, they were also separate list pages. There was no discussion about turning them into redirects, and they could be turned into separate pages again. The second point is not correct: these articles contain supplementary information (e.g., occupation information, comparative votes and percentages) not included in the main article pages.
This debate has come up before, for instance on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates in the 2003 Ontario provincial election (where there was no ultimately no consensus, and no mandate for editors who disagree with the existence of these pages to seek to remove them all). I'll readily admit, once again, that the subject of this afd will not be of any particular interest to most readers -- its main value is as part of a larger set. Previous candidate list page afds have always ended with the article pages being kept. I have some concerns about the idea of revisiting the larger issue with a standalone afd on the candidates of a smaller party. CJCurrie (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Results of the 2007 Ontario general election by riding does have both comparative votes and percentages. It's also "techincally correct" that the list pages I redirected were merely duplicates. They were junk articles that provided no additional benefit. Reywas92Talk 13:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has the basic information; it doesn't have sortable tables. That makes a difference. CJCurrie (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But no one gives a shit about the occupation about the people who got less than 1% of the vote in a regional election. That's not encyclopedic. Even for major parties this isn't information we should be compiling in this way.
"Occupation of candidate" is a standard part of election reporting and it has encyclopedic value. Is an argument against the encyclopedic merit of (to use my example from below) listing the occupations of Liberal candidates from 1945? CJCurrie (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I'll meet you halfway on one point: some of the specific pages you redirected were not particularly informative -- they were just lists of candidates. That's why I haven't brought them back in their previous form. But that's an argument for improving the pages, not deleting or merging them. CJCurrie (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A question: would a Wikipedia article listing the occupations of, say, Liberal Party of Canada candidates in the 1945 Canadian federal election (the number of lawyers, farmers, business executives, military officials, etc. etc. etc.) be of encyclopedic value? I'd say that it would. So too would having a means of sorting the percentage of votes that each candidate received.
I'll repeat this point as often as is necessary: I realize that this particular article will be of no particular interest to most readers. Its main value is as part of a larger set. And, as I've said, I have concerns about revisiting the larger issue of candidate list pages with a standalone afd on the candidates of a minor party. CJCurrie (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Why does this need to be split out by party? An overall list of candidates could potentially do this, but duplicative pages just to put this in tablular form is not necessary. The main Results of the 2007 Ontario general election by riding could even be reformatted to have percentages in a separate column to be sortable without splitting by party; I don't see that as particularly valuable either but it's better in context of all the results than for just a single party. Reywas92Talk 13:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're in favour of listing the information in a different format, I'm open to suggestions. "Listing by party" seemed like the most obvious choice when these pages were created. CJCurrie (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Notability. The number of votes they received speaks to their notability. The only person on that list with a wikipage is the person who lead the party from 2016 to 2019. The other eventual leaders on that list haven't even had a page made yet.Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merging this list would result in the removal of some information (namely the candidate's professions), so a stand alone article is fine with me.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's important and enduringly notable about these people is their vote totals, which are already present in the election's main results table as it is — their occupations at the time of the election are (a) not significant information that would pass the ten year test for enduring historical importance, and (b) supported entirely by the party's own self-published primary sourcing rather than reliable source media coverage. There's just nothing historically important about the fact that Bob Mann was a retired steelworker and Drew Garvie was a student; that's just biographical trivia about non-notable people, not information that the historical record needs to preserve for posterity in anything like the same way we need information about the backgrounds of the actual elected MPPs. The additional problem with these lists (for all parties) is that a lot of the older ones that were created before the consensus changed to preclude full BLP-style mini-articles about each individual candidate were never revised to the table-only format, and thus are still in the old deprecated format — which is, in and of itself, evidence that the biographies of non-winning election candidates are simply not of enduring historical importance, because editors would have gone back to them to fix them if they cared. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To your last point, I'll note that I proposed moving the old-format pages to Drafts a while ago. The idea didn't really go anywhere at the time, but it's still an option now. I don't agree that something ceases to have encyclopedic value just because it hasn't been updated yet.
I'll pose the same question here that I posed above: would you agree that a listing of the occupations of Liberal Party candidates from the 1945 general election has encyclopedic merit? I would contend that it does. I've read several scholarly books and articles on the history of political parties that make use of this type of information (sometimes well more than ten years after the election in question is over). A review of the relative number of lawyers, farmers, entrepreneurs, academics, union officials (and so on) among a party's candidates can reveal quite a bit about its base of support, appeal, etc. – and many serious writers have made use of this information for this specific purpose.
The article under discussion in this afd falls within the same informational framework – albeit only in a very small way. I continue to hold the view that the encyclopedic merit of the article is higher than zero, though I can understand how it wouldn't seem particularly noteworthy on its own, and I'm increasingly thinking that having standalone articles for every party in each election doesn't make sense in the way that it used to.
This discussion has gone back and forth between this particular candidate list page and candidate list pages generally. If we're going to consider the broader question of list pages, I would suggest that it be done in a forum specifically dedicated to that subject. CJCurrie (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to general information about the percentages of occupational representation in any particular party's candidate slate — however, that information would have to be supported by outside sources having already done the research and published the breakdowns for us, rather than to us trying to original research the statistics ourselves — but I definitely don't agree that there would be any discernible value in Wikipedia trying to retain a comprehensive list of every individual occupation held by every individual candidate including the defeated ones, not even for the Liberals in 1945. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. concerns remain about sourcing, but no one is strongly advocating for deletion, and those arguing for keep have provided policy based input. Star Mississippi 17:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SSC Movement

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

Article does not meet notability requirement, as it lacks significant detailed coverage in reliable sources. Searching for "The Unity and Salvation Authority of SSC" yields exactly five results, including the Wikipedia entry. "SSC movement" + "Somalia" has two results on Scholar. And although some results do show up on Google Books for "SSC movement" + "Somalia" [12] there is no significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail per SIGCOV. Additionally, the article is pushing original research with little to no backing within reliable sources, e.g. the map included in the infobox.

Lastly, and this may be out-with the scope of the AFD, the inclusion of the OR map follows a pattern observed repeatedly in behaviour of long-term vandal Middayexpress where an OR map is uploaded or edited on Commons using a throwaway account [13], and then later inserted into a Wikipedia article using a different account to evade scrutiny [14], this was discussed at length here: User:TomStar81/Horn_of_Africa_disruption. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am the initial author of this article. This organization is fully described in the article source. Even if the article name were inappropriate, changing the name of the article would suffice. And this article name change has already been proposed in Talk:SSC Movement. --Freetrashbox (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not only be reviewed in its most recent edition, but also in previous editions. The version I initially posted does not contain the problems you point out.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment This organization is very well known and it is surprising that Kzl55 and Gebagebo, who have many contributions in this area, do not know about it. This organization was created to be a local government, but is rather known as a militia. The original version of this article clearly stated the name "SSC militia," but someone has since erased it, so you may not have noticed. As you can see from the References in the article, aljazeera and BBC have covered this organization, which is enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The structure of this organization is described in detail in Hoehne (2015), and at the time, the author Hoehne was Lecturer at the University of Leipzig. The SSC is described in detail on page 78 of this book (page 79 of the PDF). Please check it.--Freetrashbox (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment As I wrote in Talk:SSC Movement before this AfD was proposed, this organization is often referred to as "SSC". And they are known to have contended with Somaliland rather than Somalia. I suggest searching on ("SSC" AND "Somaliland" -wikipedia). That way, the organization can be found on Google and on Scholar.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur with Freetrashb0x the article should stay, however it should be edited to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. The entity the article is concerning notable and was the predecessor to Khatumo State. The mentioned map is found in an article published by the National Post.

References

  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. If there's any relevant content that contains reliable sources then that could be moved to Khatumo State. Gebagebo (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete -- This is an article with 20 references, at least some of which are certainly RS. It might be appropriate to rename e.g. SSC militia or to merge it into something else. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the topic lacks significant detailed coverage in reliable sources. Out of the 20 sources only few are RS, and in that group there is very little detailed coverage of the topic as most sources just mention it in passing. I think merger with Khatumo might be a good possibility, along with a name change to SSC militia as you've suggested. --Kzl55 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Kzl55: The fact that this request has been extended twice indicates that neither my claim nor yours was accepted by the community, especially the administrators. We need to elaborate a bit more on our claims and provide the community with some decision-making material.
    I have answered your questions and renamed the article to SSC (militia). Do you consider this to have solved the problem? If you do not think it has been resolved, please tell me what the problem is.--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of responses to an AfD request has little to do with community's 'acceptance' of claims, I dont know where you got that from. Some AfDs get more interest from the community due to the nature of topic, while niche articles like this one usually have a slower AfD process. Renaming the article changes very little about the deletion argument, i.e. the topic lacks "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail per SIGCOV". Although some mentions can be found in sources, there is little evidence of reliable sources addressing the subject in detail. Furthermore, the article has problematic sourcing, an example can be found in the opening statement which uses HuffPost as a source, this source is considered unreliable on Wikipedia because "Until 2018, the US edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight." I suggest you remain patient and let the AfD process play out, hopefully more people will see it and respond. --Kzl55 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The HuffPost information was added by another account, not the first contributor. In such cases, I would recommend an edit or revert, not a deletion request. (Moreover, this addition was made after you submitted this deletion request. I am using my time to respond to your deletion request, and I hope you will respond in good faith and not waste our both time.)
What WP:SIGCOV requires is "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I presented 19 sources in the first edition of this article. At least references 1 - 5 of these give significant coverage to this organization. Of these, Hoehne 2015 (written by a university faculty member), reliefweb.int (United Nations Security Council), and Al Jazeera are the most reliable sources. Although some sources deal with this organization in a fragmented sense, the inclusion of such sources does not constitute grounds for deletion.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The specific editor who added the content is not the issue in this case, and not a good argument in the context of an AfD. You say you've presented 19 sources, but that is not the case. Out of the 19 citations, 4 are for the same piracyreport.com source (a self-funded self-published site [15]). Self-published sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia per RSSELF. Your citation list includes other self-published Somali blogs e.g. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. The academic sources you've listed cite a user-generated forum discussion as the source on SSC [21] (p. 14), or use some of the aforementioned self-published sites as sources [22] (p.45). As said previously, there is little evidence of reliable sources addressing the subject in detail, as such deletion or merger with Khatumo State is entirely warranted. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can find a number of reliable sources citing piracyreport.com. For examples, LANDINFO、FAO, Book by Oxford University Press, and Book by Princeton University Press. By your logic, not all of these books are reliable sources of information, but such an idea is erroneous. Rather, it is reasonable to assume that a source listed in reliable sources is a reliable source for that publisher. --Freetrashbox (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is consensus that this does not meet notability requirements. I am not draftifying it unless someone wants to actively work on it. Moldering in draft space for six months is not a practical solution. Star Mississippi 13:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sárrétudvari KSE

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

Not notable GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Article about a Hungarian football club with unreliable sources (a database and the homepage of the club). Although there are some honours listed, there are no sources cited. During a search I mainly found the usual databases, listings, videos and the like. This club doesn't seem notable, but if anyone presents reliable sources I cannot access, I change my mind. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am Hungarian I speak the language of course. :) As I have mentioned, during a google search I found databases (unreliable), listings (both unreliable and trivial), videos (unreliable), Wikipedia mirrors (unreliable) and trivial mentions (unreliable). If there were any articles, it was about some other football club or a football match, and Sárrétudvari KSE was just a trivial mention. Playing in Magyar Kupa might add a little bit of notability, but the sources are more important in my opinion. Also, Soccerway is a database, and while MLSZ.hu is reliable (as I have heard), the news on there are not about them. Though I might admit I did not check all five pages. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to imagine that in a century-old team, that regularly plays in the Hungarian cup, that there isn't some coverage out there User:GhostDestroyer100; I've never done any research on historic Hungarian topics. Where's a good source of media coverage from the 1930s through 1990s for Hungarian media? Nfitz (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have a portal called Hungaricana which collects old newspapers. I did a search there and all I got were a trivial listing and the words separately. Same with Arcanum, a similar portal. So it seems like there is no offline coverage for them either. But it might be possible that there are sources I have missed. These two are the only ones I can rely on if I want offline coverage for something. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it odd given the age of the club that there wouldn't be more sources. How far is that club from you anyway? Going to that town to test it's library, archives there. heh, that would be an adventure for you now! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is very far. Everything is far from my small little village (it's not a town; actually, it's not even a village, more like a settlement) so yeah. We don't even have a proper library. But you can come here and test it :) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal theatre

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

The article stub Municipal theatre begins with a dictionary description (WP:NOT#DICT). All additional description of the article subject is about what the subject is not, by comparison to other theatre forms, but the implied differences do not exist.

  • State theatres, Landesbühnen and municipal theatres all receive public funds from their cities and states.
  • All German theatres can receive public funding.
  • "Municipal theatres" are not necessarily former court theatres. They can emerge through private initiative, e.g. Volksbühne.
  • They are not necessarily financed by wealthy citizens, many have been founded by artists.

Article by Christian Rakow about theatre funding in Germany on the website of the Goethe Institut (in english) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrestesLebt (talk • contribs) 2022-03-28T07:57:55 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Transformation Agency

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

Government agency doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG- in-depth coverage in independent sources is limited to WP:ROUTINE announcements about its formation. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. After almost 2 weeks there is no consensus for deletion, so let's put this out of its misery. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Government agencies are generally notable. Rathfelder (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder, which Wikipedia policy states that government agencies are generally notable please? MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know about any policy. Its a fact that government agencies generally get plenty of coverage in independent sources. This one already seems to have quite a bit and its likely to get more. What it is supposed to be doing is newsworthy. Rathfelder (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all of these references (total effort so far about 10 minutes) there is enough to improve the page. I should also note that the previous version of the agency is redirected here so we already have a single page for 2 departments. I would update the page myself but I am working on some other pages at the moment. Gusfriend (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments like "Government agencies are generally notable" are unsupported by inclusion guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Edgar Allan Poe (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Poe (disambiguation)

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

A case of the tail wagging the dog. There are many Edgar Allan Poe entries (transferred by me to Edgar Allan Poe (disambiguation)) and only two Edgar Poes. Edgar Poe already redirects to Edgar Allan Poe, and I've adjusted the hatnote to point to the minor character rather than this page. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that significant coverage exists. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Sukhenko

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The coverage I can see is in passing - she was a prominent victim of the Bucha massacre (a local politician, village head), but that's not the same as notable. Also relevant WP:ONEVENT, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I recommend a redirect to Bucha massacre, where she is already mentioned as a victim (and the current article has next to no extra information anyway). PS. No Ukrainian interwiki is a red flag too, uk:Ольга Сухенко is not even a redirect? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepA quick peek at Google News indicate a huge amount of international coverage in the most high profile newspapers. BLP1E clearly does not apply to a mayor, who is a high profile individual. I could say more, but it's best explained here WP:NOTBLP1E CT55555 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A mayor of a village... Anyway, can you link such coverage when it passes [[WP:SIGCOV]? All I see are mentions in passing, that a leader of a village, named such and such, as well as her family and some other people, were brutally killed. That's tragic, but that's not enough to make her notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you have not understood the link I have shared above. So I'll try to explain.
    WP:BLP1E is a policy written to avoid creating articles about people who are notable only for one thing. Sukhenko is notable for two things: being a mayor, and then being murdered.
    WP:BLP1E does not require that each of these events meet the significant coverage threshold. What BLP1E presents is three criteria that each need to be met. One of those criteria is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Low profile is defined if you click through WP:LOWPROFILE and it presents examples including specifically people who have power in a political sphere. She was a mayor. That is clear.
    So it is not my job to show you that her mayor activities have significant coverage, it it my job to argue if she is a low profile individual or not. And the guidance is clear that she is not.
    I would urge you to not make the very commonly made misunderstanding of WP:BLP1E and to please read WP:NOTBLP1E with care. CT55555 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First, she was not a mayor, despite what sources call her. She was a village leader ([25]). A mayor is "is the highest-ranking official in a municipal government such as that of a city or a town" (that is also true for Ukraine, according to that article). So no, you are wrong when you say "Sukhenko is notable for two things: being a mayor, and then being murdered.". But let's rephrase it to "Sukhenko is notable for two things: being a village leader, and then being murdered." Now, show me a single source that discusses her being a village leader outside of the context of her death? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria from WP:LOWPROFILE does not care what label we give her, it talks about people who have power in the political sphere. The village or town (good sources call it both) mayor or leader (good sources call her both) has political power. At risk of moving into original research, that might be why she was killed. That might be why this is news. Deep into personal analysis here, note either only her family was shot (why would that be, probably because she is important or notable) or others were and only her made the news (again, suggesting notability).
    Most likely the mayor or leader of a village or town in Ukraine will not make English language media, and my lack of Ukrainian blocks me from finding online sources, my geographic distance from Motyzhyn prevents me from getting the local papers. Thankfully, Wikipedia policy does not require me to show significant coverage of her mayoral duties, the policy we are discussing talks about low and high profile people, and I've explained which one she is and the 2022 sources back that up, and I think you are still not following the argument I am making if you keep thinking I need to show you significant coverage of her mayoral duties, this request is still showing me that we both understand WP:BLP1E differently and I think I am correct and rather than keep asking me the same thing, can you please review the part I am talking about? CT55555 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As you requested, here is a source reporting on her work as the mayor from before her death
    https://vk.com/wall-71213834_352 CT55555 (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw below that you chose to not comment unless pinged, I think I should ping you for your comment on this, as this seemed to be exactly what you needed to reconsider User:Piotrus CT55555 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinged, I reply. While I appreciate attempts to try to find the badly needed sources, I assume you did not realize that VK (service) is a Russian equivalent of social media (also used in Ukraine). As such, we cannot accept this as reliable source. As for her notability as a politician, I still see no sufficient sourcing to show she meets Wikipedia:Notability (politicians). (And to pre-empt pointing to "received significant press coverage", I stand by my assessment that what received said press coverage is not her, but her death). Hence, WP:BLP1E still applies (and even the sources about her death are hardly in-depth). PS. One of the best Ukrainian sources bout her death, [26], is, first, about ther family (not just abut her), and second, when it com sto her, it openly admits "There is little information in open sources about her work as head of the village. ". And our section about her political career consists of little but bare-bones information about the dates she assumed her office, a report - based on the VK social media post you linked to - that at one point she visited a nursing home, a "sky is blue" sentence stating that "Her role included informal dispute resolution, building improvements, and organizing cultural events" that we can copy paste to every other article we have about municipal officials, a translation of her Facebook post and then mostly off topic information about the Bucha massacre. I am sorry to say but this is really scrapin the barrel, and fails SIGCOV by a mile. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(Disclosure: I started the article) This doesn't fall under BLP1E as she was already notable as a national politician and mayor of a town. The coverage as it stands now, is quite significant and there are articles in major publications which focus solely on her - Alison ❤ 20:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a suggestion (and just to be clear, I 100% agree with what you wrote above) but maybe if you added more in from the many sources online it would be even easier for more people to agree? CT55555 (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but I gotta day job and another minority-language Wiki on my plate, so can only do what I can, when I can - Alison ❤ 21:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "she was already notable as a national politician and mayor of a town". Please provide reference for that. And she was not a mayor of a town, but a village leader (Motyzhyn is a village, not a town). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly meets notability criteria.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSNOTABLE, really? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bucha massacre. Sukhenko and her family are currently mentioned at Battle_of_Bucha#Bucha_massacre, but this section is tagged for editing into more of a summary, and there is currently no mention of her at the suggested target article. If additional sourcing develops, a standalone BLP could be recreated, but for now, it appears WP:BLP1E encourages a merge to the only event for which she receives coverage, because she is otherwise low-profile (based on sources I have found), and her role in this significant event (including e.g. Ukraine reporting the abduction of 11 mayors (AFP, Apr. 3, 2022)) is not currently well-documented. For now, the sources appear insufficient to support a standalone article; per WP:SIGCOV fn 3,It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Beccaynr (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuine question: is a mayor really WP:LOWPROFILE? I quote (emphasis mine): "High-profile: Has sought or holds a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in a field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere" CT55555 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote above from the Eminence section also states,usually at more than a locally-significant level. I have not found sources to otherwise show she was high-profile per the explanatory supplement, e.g.one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication or voluntary participation inself-publicity activities, such as press conferences or that she was aspeaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage. The explanatory supplement also states,Typically notable or would-be notable for roles of various levels of importance in more than a single major event, or for a major role in one major event. My !vote is also based on the WP:PAGEDECIDE guideline, due to the context available in the suggested merge target, with a caveat that while sourcing currently appears insufficient to support a standalone article, it may develop in the future to support recreation of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - adding to significant coverage in reliable sources, the WSJ has just published a profile of her life and death. She is a small-town mayor, and I agree that's not a guarantee of notability by any means, but as an individual she clearly is notable. WP:BLP1E does not apply - her death resulted in significant coverage *because* she was/is notable. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Within the WP:BLP1E/WP:LOWPROFILE framework, the WSJ reports on her role beyond a locally-significant level (e.g. "She was also part of an undercover effort to send Russian troop positions and movements to the Ukrainian military, say Ukrainian officials and others involved"), as does BBC News: "It is believed that she and her family were killed on suspicion of helping Ukrainian soldiers". Beccaynr (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite the title, it's not really a profile about her, it's an article about a number of related Russian war crimes, and it still fails to say much about her, except providing a few quotes about her from the former residents. And for the n-th time, it's incorrect to call her a mayor. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really about her? The story focuses on her from beginning to end. This article calls her a mayor, as do a number of other reliable sources (for example 1, 2). Whether that's a perfect translation of her title or not has no bearing on her notability. I know it's tempting to respond to everyone you feel is making weak-quality arguments (I've fallen into the exact same trap myself!) but be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON the process. Ganesha811 (talk) Ganesha811 (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fine to move this discussion to your talk page, to avoid bludgeoning this here, but in short, I don't think those are sources focusing on her. At best they focus on death of Olga Sukhenko, as we still now very little about her pre-death life, and IMHO the stories are using her as a "face" of the wider massacre, as she appears to be the most prominent victim of it. Unless pinged to, I will withdraw from this discussion and will not reply unless pinged directly (as you say, I may indeed be posting a bit too much here), but to reiterate my point, IMHO, sadly, she has no notability separate from that terrible attrocity, and thefore, there is no need for a stand-alone article - unless sources are found that discuss her life outside of her tragic death, and meeting WP:SIGCOV. (as in, the few quotes about her being a good community leader from interviewed survivors in the lenghtier pieces, are not sufficient). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus, I appreciate your analysis of the sources, because I think sources help drive the determination of what is best for this article. I updated my !vote based on information from more recent sources (e.g. WSJ, BBC) that discuss her role in the war that was beyond of her usual role as the head of the village, and specifically her involvement in support of the Ukrainian army, which may be connected to her death but also seems to be the kind of 'high-profile' activity and support for a 'substantial and well-documented' role that makes it harder for me to continue to support a merge. And then there is the coverage of her as a 'face' of the wider massacre, and coverage related to her currently being the only known fatality of the 12 abducted mayors reported by Ukrainian officials. My general sense is that based on this initial information, as well as other news about calls for investigations into war crimes, there is more than speculation we can engage in about the potential for future coverage. But this article can be revisited in the future, including per WP:BLP1E, perhaps on the basis that the significance of the event was not adequately supported by persistent coverage, or because further documentation of her substantial role did not emerge. Beccaynr (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — she had a son too, Oleksandr Sukhenko[uk]. ☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 18:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pietadè, Do note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Curbon7 (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 5 keeps, 1 merge, zero delete !votes.... WP:SNOW is relevant here, I don't think this article is likely to be deleted.... CT55555 (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, we're running at 100% keep now... CT55555 (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a Ukrainian interwiki article: uk:Сухенко Ольга Петрівна without sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • !vote updated to Weak Keep and I have struck most of my comment above - the additional sources identified in this discussion (WSJ, BBC) and this Metro/MSN article about her final Facebook post and other details add to hersubstantial andwell-documented role. My !vote would be stronger if there was more time since the event to assert significance based on persistence of coverage per WP:BLP1E. Beccaynr (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC) - comment updated to strike WP:METRO. Beccaynr (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article has had about 11,000 page views in the first two days since being created, so there is clearly a demand to read more about this person at the moment. This person and her family appear to be victims of one of a number of notable criminal acts that are likely to be of historical significance. We have many articles about the victims of other crimes, so why should this article be any different? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are murder victims with their own pages and there are prominent people & 'celebs' with their own pages; Olga Sukhenko was both, so why not a page? - Is there a worry about limited server space? Chien-ShiungWu (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to OTHESTUFFEXISTS I just linked above, see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING (why argument "Per WP:NOTPAPER, Wikipedia has space for it " is not valid). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Knuppe

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. All the references are pre win coverage before elections. Been on the cat:nn category with a notability tag since June 2010 and never been updated. scope_creepTalk 17:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Rlink2 (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when you get trounced in the primary, getting less than 5% of the vote, you are almost always a non-notable politician, and we do not have any other factors that would suggest otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's really not much to say about this individual. Surprised this article has lasted 12 years given the complete lack of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and others. Thoroughly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one and losing — but this makes no claim of preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy, and there are no discernible grounds to treat his candidacy as a special case. (No, "would have been the third cowboy in South Dakota history to be elected to the state's top office" is not an important historic distinction.) Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even having been the first cowboy would not be an important historical distinction. Now if someone would have been the first cowboy, and every paper from the LA Times to the Washington Times to the New York Times wrote an indepth article on him because he would be the first cowboy, and he lost the election, that might be a case worth keeping, but this is not that case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Shamineau

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

I don't think the Camp is notable, and the article is basically unsourced; the only reference on the page doesn't even mention the camp. Having searched on google for references to the camp all I can find are passing mentions in 'lists of camps' type pages, and their own website. JeffUK (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 09:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist Worker

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

Socialist/Marxist magazine article with no source. Never had sources. Been on the cat:nn for more than 10 years. Potentially notable by currently fails WP:SIGCOV. Found one ref but its an WP:SPS. Seems to be ultra obscure. scope_creepTalk 15:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: I had a look at them but couldn't decide a redirect target or even if it was wise doing it. You seem to have done a deep dive. I think I will follow your advice to the letter. I will close this tommorrow. scope_creepTalk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Loughborough University. Probably selectively... Sandstein 06:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Epinal

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

Non notable Darrelljon (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Volebeats

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 14:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Balboa

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Dayang Normala Awang Tambi

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

I tagged the article as an WP:A7, but another administrator redirected the article. The author of the article then reverted the redirect. The subject has no apparent notability except through her husband. Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Waitress

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a band not yet reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only significant notability claim being made here is the existence of one album, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself as NMUSIC requires two albums, not just one, if you're aiming for "the music exists" as the notability target — but the sourcing is not strong enough to get them over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass any of NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria either: four of the seven footnotes are unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all (an event calendar listing, a Q&A interview in which they're answering questions about themselves in the first person on a blog, two more very short blurbs on other blogs) and a fifth comes from a single-market local commercial radio station -- there are just two footnotes here (Kerrang and Exclaim) that actually count as valid GNG-worthy support for notability, which isn't enough. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when they have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 13:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schedulix

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

I can't find enough sources to pass WP:NCORP (significant coverage, independent and reliable sources). MarioGom (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarioGom, as job scheduler software is not such a "hot" topic for most magazines, for that reason there are so not many articles about the open source solution schedulix. But there is a user community, you find on schedulix.org. There are many admins worldwide who automate their maintenance tasks with schedulix or use schedulix for other automations. Another problem is that most job schedulers are backed by large corporations that can invest a lot of money in advertising and are therefore more visible. Augusta05 (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Augusta05: While I appreciate all open source projects, that has little to do with our General notability guideline or our notability criteria for products. MarioGom (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Technically ineligible as there was a prior PROD, but unlikely to have further input coming and no one is contesting the nomination. Star Mississippi 02:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TDK-Micronas

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

Fails WP:ORG. No independent sources provided, what gives is a promo smell. The Banner talk 11:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to 2013 NFL season. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2013 NFL records and milestones

List of 2013 NFL records and milestones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In all of the NFL season articles since 2006 (I didn't look back further than 2006, as I felt this is far enough back to make my point), there is a section that is created for records or milestones. The 2013 season's section, Records and milestones, lists several points and links to a more comprehensive list instead of including it in the article itself. The content was originally split on April 29th, 2014.

The 2013 season saw a level of detail in this section that had not been seen in prior years, which caused the section to grow to a point where I understand why the split occurred. However, in the years since, none of the other NFL season articles have followed the same format. They have instead opted to include these lists in the main article space.

As of now it's the only outlier compared to the other NFL season articles. The content should be added to the 2013 NFL season and the split out list's article should be deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nemet Qasimli

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:NBIO, and WP:GNG. Lacks sources, and was likely written in return for undisclosed payments. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I did check the source you provided, and it does read like yet another advert. Even some of the primary sources in there don't have the content they are cited for. Notability standards on tr.wiki may be different, but this still doesn't make it notable enough for en.wiki (in my opinion). - Kevo327 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For future closer's consideration, Abrvagl is a new editor, who mostly edits based on their POV and vote keep on every AfD discussion they ever had. - Kevo327 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you think that it is promotional Kevo327? Are you able to read it directly in Turkish or are you relying on a machine translation? If you're relying on a machine translation, that might be the problem. The language doesn't strike me as particularly advertorial (and believe me when I say I've cleaned up my fair share of Azerbaijani promotional biographies in Turkish). Content-wise, I do have parts that I have issues with, e.g. an undue emphasis on the person's own description of what they do or insignificant foreign awards, but I find that these are quite common issues one encounters with Turkish biographical writing, they don't necessarily mean that it's an advert. There is nothing to indicate that this source doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. It is published in an academic biographical dictionary (TEİS - Biographical Dictionary of Turkish Literature), a project sponsored by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and the Ahmet Yesevi University, and where all articles are written by subject matter experts and undergo editorial review. The author of this particular article, Mehmet Erol, is a professor of Turkology at Gaziantep University with a track record of articles on Turkic folk literature. He has also authored a number of articles on Azerbaijani biographies for TEİS, meaning that he would have been invited as the subject matter expert on this. As with all Turkish academic literature, the quality is variable, but this is nonetheless a very decent source and it confirms the existence of multiple additional offline sources. --GGT (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For future closer's consideration. 1. This is completely baseless accusation. Anyone can check my votes and confirm, that they are not "KEEP" on every AfD discussions. 2. Kevo327 is experienced user who primarily AfD and speedy delete Azerbaijan related articles. He always votes "Delete" on every discussions. He also previously was warned looking for articles about Azerbaijani subjects and then tagging them for deletion, and for anti-Azerbaijani bias. Abrvagl (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, Kevo327. Could we please try and keep things civil? There is no need for these personal accusations. As to whether someone !votes more often/usually/always to Delete, that has little bearing on the substance of every AfD. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I really don't a lesson on what consistutes a secondary source when I've done more than 3000 Afd's, created hundreds of article with more than 100k edits. We can go over the references if you want they want. They are rank, meaning crap in the venacular. Not of them proves he is notable. We will go over them shortly.scope_creepTalk 16:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Examination of the references:
Ref 1 Azərbaycan Respublikasının mədəniyyət xadimlərinə fəxri adların verilməsi haqqında States he is an "Honoured cultural worker". No other context is visible.
Ref 2 [30] Dead link. Tried it in three browsers but dead. Non-RS.
Ref 3 UNESCO Multimedia Video & Sound Collections Seems to be video, but no mention of the subject is publishing details.
Ref 4 Nemət Qasımovdan, Bakı Azərbaycan Letter from the subject to the president thanking for the award. The reference is primary.
Ref 5 http://www.visions.az/en/news/23/be582a38/ An interview.
Ref 6 Is dead link.
Ref 7 Folklor İnstitutunun fəlsəfə doktorları This is a list of doctorates, but can't him on the list after translating it.
Ref 8 Is dead link.
Ref 9 Nemet Qasimli – A Bard in Baku This is a passing mention, but the same ref as ref 5.
So we have out of 9 reference, 4 are dead links, 2 are primary of which goes into a bit of detail, 1 is a passing mention, 1 is a video which doesn't detail in the publishing history and 1 is a "Honoured cultural worker" which is a name of list with secondary detail. So there is no in-depth, secondary coverage of the subject. Potentially, if there was more information on honoured cutural worker meant, but there is no context. Currently the references don't support a BLP. scope_creepTalk 16:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I have nothing but appreciation for your contributions, but they don’t have any bearing on the validity of your arguments, please don’t make this personal. Your argument is that this source is non-academic and non-secondary because, what, it cites the author’s website? I’ll freely admit that it’s not the greatest work of scholarship but the argument just doesn’t follow. It’s an article by a professor in an academic work, and reliable secondary sources cite primary sources by definition. It also signposts to offline sources about this person. I’m not disputing your analysis of the sources in the article but it’s irrelevant. The argument to keep isn’t based on the sources in the article, nor does it have to be. —GGT (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That reference is using the mans who personnel website as a reference. Its not a valid source, its not independent. Please throw up three other secondary sources per WP:THREE that proves he is notable. That is the standard process for Afd. There is not one thing here that proves that yet. scope_creepTalk 07:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It also cites various other publications. Independent sources can cite primary sources, independence has to do with the affiliation/CoI of the author/editor, who in this case is a disinterested scholar. This is my final comment here. I’ve addressed these or closely related points in my comments above. I don’t wish to repeat myself, nor do I wish to bludgeon the discussion. I’ll respectfully agree to disagree. —GGT (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Those !voting to keep have not managed to present policy-based arguments supported by linked sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed "The Hawk" Shahid

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

Subject is a mixed martial fighter. Subject fails NMMA for not having at least 3 top tier promotion fights and subject also fail GNG for info of the fight is merely routine reports Cassiopeia talk 09:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep as Mohammed Shahid is not only the president of BRAVE Combat Federation, but a notable in the MMA world who looks to change MMA from an event business to a sports business. This could be seen from the recent BRAVE International Combat Week event which took place few weeks ago in Bahrain where top International Mixed Martial Arts Federation countries could fight for the spot of the best Amateur mixed martial arts federation with a price and a trophy to be won by the top federation. This is a first of it's kind in MMA world where team fight against other teams. This vision only came true through the initiative and organization of Mohammed Shahid and Kerrith Brown, president of International Mixed Martial Arts Federation. Shahid fails NMMA as he is no longer a mixed martial arts fighter but rather a notable MMA organizer and with vision to impact lives. Rather than deleting, his wiki page should rather be updated. Ryan mambo (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC) — Ryan mambo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: Being the president of a MMA org does not mean the subject merit a page in the Wikipedia, but the subject needs to pass the Wikipedia notability which none of the above editor demonstrate the necessary requirements. Cassiopeia talk 23:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is notable as the CEO of Brave Combat Federation receiving citations from tier 1 publications and national media. He has also received national media citations almost on a daily basis. The page needs to be updated. Haribhagirath (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Being the president of a MMA org does not mean the subject merit a page in the Wikipedia, but the subject needs to pass the Wikipedia notability which none of the above editor demonstrate the necessary requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassiopeia (talk •
  • Comment: Body text and sources have since added after my comment above, but the career section is about the company/org and not about the subject himself. No relevant to contribute to GNG for the subject as notability is not inherited. Subject still fails notability guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 04:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 08:56, March 26, 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is a charm. The keep votes are not policy based so if we are keeping we need gng levl sourcing showing please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He is not notable for his sports achievements. He appears to be an active promoter of sporting events and is frequently mentioned in articles. However, looking through the sources I don't see much coverage of him as a person--only as a promoter of this or that event. That doesn't seem like significant coverage to me and he doesn't appear to meet WP:ANYBIO. I'm leaning delete unless someone can show me specific coverage that meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since no additional coverage has been shown, I am voting to Delete this article. Papaursa (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HotMen CoolBoyz

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

The one source cited (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=m6Lh0hu-2xUC&pg=PA246&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) only briefly mentions the movie, and I can't find any other sources Ficaia (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. albeit weakly. We have two PRODs, two refunds and three relists. However there appears to be a rough consensus that an article should exist about Haque. Star Mississippi 02:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umair Haque

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

This biography was somehow deleted via PROD in 2015, brought back via WP:RFUD in 2019, and then deleted via PROD again in 2021. I just restored it at RFUD the second time specifically so that I could initiate this AfD to settle notability via discussion. The page deleted in 2015 is superior to the current version but I agree it fails to establish WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete. These are some awfully thin threads to hang notability on. By these standards, I could conceivably be an article subject (and I know I'm not "notable"). BD2412 T 01:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:AUTHOR criteria 3 would confirm his notability if he has created something that is then the subject of multiple independent reviews. With regards to his book The New Capitalist Manifesto: Building a disruptively better business, it does have at least two such reviews:
  1. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/book-review-the-new-capitalist-manifesto-building-a-disruptively-better-business/
  2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315942495_The_New_Capitalist_Manifesto_Building_a_Disruptively_better_Business_Book_Review
So I think I've got it right that he therefore meets WP:AUTHOR. Sorry, normally I'd edit these in, but the "bibliography" section uses some sort of template and I don't have the skills. Also, please do ping me if I've got my analysis wrong. CT55555 (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The second link CT55555 posted, published in a journal, looks entirely unambiguous. The first is a blog (bad) from the London School of Economics (quite prestigious). The Irish Times article linked above looks like a pretty thorough review to me, and The National article there also has him as the primary topic. Here's a bit about him from NPR also. That looks to be about it for substantive coverage, but added together it looks like a GNG or WP:NAUTHOR pass to me. Rusalkii (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously my first url has the word blog in it, and it is titled as a blog, but I think it's because it's a university and book reviews are opinions rather than peer reviewed facts, as I see it, it's a bona fide book review. CT55555 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with you, but there are definitely people in deletion discussions that disapprove of anything bloggy, so I figured I'd flag that. That being said, having read the second review more carefully it doesn't inspire confidence. "In General, the book is interesting, profound, brilliant, academic and ethical"? Doesn't change my !vote, but also noteworthy.
In any case, I've updated the article a little so that it at least has more than one sentence to say about him and no uncited content. Rusalkii (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Venkat TL (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gopichand Padalkar

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable media. Member of Legislative Council are not elected from public election, they are party nominees. Need to pass GNG or WP:ANYBIO Venkat TL (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Withdraw[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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Deodhar

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

Fails WP:NPOL. A politician, no election victory, no major public post. Venkat TL (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have reviewed the links. Every politician get election related coverage that cannot be used to claim WP:GNG. That is why WP:NPOL exists, or else we would have to create articles for every politician. All the links above are in the same category of election related coverage. Some links are clearly promotional. There are no major achievements by this politician nor any major award. Venkat TL (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL elaborates the conditions for presumed notability, it's not an exclusionary guideline, it's inclusionary. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Maybe WP:GNG but the references are not enough significant to meet WP:BIO neither he passes WP:NPOL. Mostly the citations are primarily used sources only primary sources without significant coverage I don't think it meets anyone criteria to vote this article as Keep per me. @@@XyX talk 22:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Further to the sources above, in searching, I'm seeing multiyear, multilanguage (Hindi, Bangla, English) reliable source news coverage well outside election period coverage. National news analysis for BJP victory in Tripura. Move to WB and election planning there. Roles in RSS and BJP discussed. Spreading fake news. Clearly a national-level, notable party represenative. Meets the GNG.

References

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the links. 2018-19 are election related coverage. Rest are statements given as a party spokesman. They do not establish notability. Primary concern is lack of major achievement or election victory/major post. Even the Wiki article does not assert notability in the first line, because there is nothing to fill up there. Venkat TL (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's a high-level *electoral*-party representative, of course there will be election-related coverage. It's only once every five years there's less than five state/UT elections in a single year in India. It's a long bow to claim that election-related reports do not establish notability for a person whose primary function is election-related; the problem is your position on sourcing conflates a politician seeking election with a party-representative who is not seeking election. There's more than adequate material from reliable sources to satisfy the GNG. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians are prone to promotional and election related routine coverage. GNG cannot be claimed for them. Venkat TL (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not surprising that sources discuss this individual in the context of election matters, as he is a political party official. Much of the coverage referenced above is fairly high quality and in-depth. Frankly I struggle to see how a person holding such a senior role within the world's largest political party in the world's largest democracy could not be notable. The sources clearly demonstrate his notability. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article should remain. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland)

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

No evidence of any notability, only been written about in far-left minor publications (note: the Weekly Worker link[31] does not address this group directly), but not in reliable, independent sources. A fringe group with no political results or importance so far, and which has failed to get real attention since the split. Fram (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference to repeat what I commented when removing WP:PROD - this is a stub which requires further work, however even in its current form meets notability test. Multiple reliable independent secondary sources have been provided. For the two additional comments: the Weekly Worker link references CWI Majority which is noted in the article and "failed to get real attention since the split" WP:NTEMP seems relevant. Sirrontail (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't get attention from RS then, and it hasn't received attention since. Right below NTEMP is WP:SUSTAINED... My comment about the Weekly Worker is because that is the best source of the lot, but it isn't about the subject, so doesn't help for notability. Fram (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been coverage in local newspapers which I found after a simple search and have added to the article.Vahvistus (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems that, apart from one article from Salford and some passing mentions, you also added articles which aren't about the British party, but about the international one, e.g. this and this. Fram (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, mentioned in several local newspaper articles which are reputable secondary sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To make clear I believe this article should not be deleted, the reasons I previously posted stand, but it has now been substantially improved, with a significant number of independent secondary sources, referring to Socialist Alternative's work across the country. If it is still believed there are issues these should be dealt with via normal editing or cleanup tags rather than deletion WP:CONRED. I'd also suggest C2 should have been considered prior to the AfD process being started. Sirrontail (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max (cigarette)

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

Unable to find reliable sources to verify almost anything in the article. CigarettesPedia is user-generated content, and the other two sites appear to be operated by random people, with minimal review. Several other wikis have articles on Max, but I couldn't find any usable sources there either. The most I've found is a handful of passing mentions, stating that Lorillard owns the Max brand. Sunmist (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhanshu Rai

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

End-to-end WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Lacks WP:RS/WP:RSP. Possible WP:COI/WP:UPE. Creator of this page has also created a page Detective Boomrah, a project directed by this entity which itself lack notability. - Hatchens (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DMySon, again i want to say i am involved in COI and UPE. Subject passes GNG because he has coverage in Reliable publications like The Hindu and Indian Express and also he directed the web series Detective Boomrah which is a notable web series as you can check its reviews on google and also directed film chaipatti and its reviews also available on google. So if he doesn’t passes Nactor but he is notable film director and storyteller according to his work and sources. -IndaneLove (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Culture of Abkhazia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of museums in Abkhazia

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

Does every region of a country warrant a standalone list? Doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable to be a standalone article either way, also there is already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_in_Georgia_(country) where it can be integrated instead nearlyevil665 21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpdeep Bhardwaj

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

Fails WP:GNG, Lacks WP:SIGCOV. End-to-end WP:PROMO. Possible WP:COI/WP:UPE. The creator has been involved in creating similar promotional pages; Shashie Verma, Sambhav Jain, Aakanksha Sareen. - Hatchens (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DMySon, I am not involved in WP:COI/WP:UPE. Subject is notable as He has directed Jalebi and Ranjish He Sahi. He also contributed as additional dialogues writer for the Mahesh Bhatt directed action thriller film Sadak 2. Please check the details.

IndaneLove (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DMySon; Kindly note, Ranjish He Sahi article they just created to support this entity's notability. - Hatchens (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ranjish He Sahi is a notable web series directed by Pushpdeep Bhardwaj. I created this because you ignored his works Because there is no article on Wikipedia of his work. even his work is totally notable and he also has reliable news coverage. -IndaneLove (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aakanksha Sareen

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and WP:ADMASQ. Similar to Shashie Verma and Sambhav Jain; pages created by the same editor. Possible WP:COI/WP:UPE. - Hatchens (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DMySon and what’s about her works as a model? -IndaneLove (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the topic neither meets WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. DMySon (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Tow (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhav Jain

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and WP:ADMASQ. Similar to Shashie Verma page created by the same editor. Possible WP:COI/WP:UPE. - Hatchens (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bani Fasan

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND/WP:GNG. Only sources located on a search are trivial mentions in name databases/gazetteers/etc or Wikipedia mirrors. No indication that this is a notable natural feature. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upeksha (film)

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

Non-notable film which fails to meet WP:NFILM requirements. Apparently released in Dec 2019 but I found no reliable reviews in WP:BEFORE, both in Hindi and English Ab207 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vyavastha

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

This unreleased film article created in 2015 has no coverage on production to meet WP:NFF requirements. Does not confirm the filming which is the bare minimum requirement for a future film. Sources listed are database sites and non-RS. Nothing significant was found in WP:BEFORE Ab207 (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Press & Assessment

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

The article subject does not appear to be independently notable of Cambridge University Press which seems to be the organization that swallowed Cambridge Assessment to create this entity. Seeing as we do not need to have multiple articles that cover what is functionally the same business entity, I propose that this be blanked and redirected to Cambridge University Press, where it can be adequately covered. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep CUP&A is the new umbrella parent of four separate organisations, each of which is notable enough to have its own article (so it's not "the same business entity"). Redirect to CUP would not work as one cannot cover the assessment end of things in that article. Atchom (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I'm not normally all that keen on multiple articles covering different groupings of entities, I can't see any alternative in this case. Cambridge Assessment is a new name for an old and notable thing on which a lot has been written; it is too big in its own right to be squeezed in with CUP, whose history and line of business were something quite different (and which is also big and notable). So we can't merge either into the other. Either or both could have been merged into Cambridge University itself, but that's so very vast that they'd instantly have to bud off as separate articles to avoid the article on Cambridge University becoming a veritable book. And so we're stuck with a cover-all article for the newly merged combination. It might be that in 40 years time CUP and Cambridge Assessment can both be merged into this article, but the time has not yet come. Elemimele (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Froggatt (talent agent)

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

Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The claim "still in the top ten of talent agents" is unverified. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Forbes-Robertson

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

Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. Notability is not inherited from his brother. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created in violation of a block and has no substantial edits by other editors. Mz7 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abir Mahmud

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

No claim or evidence of being notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Heatherly

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only database sources are provided, and there isn't sufficient coverage to meet GNG, only routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 02:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject just about meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are routine sporting reports that wouldn't be considered significant coverage besides the GIF one I guess, still fails GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 14:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My search didn't show the coverage to support a claim that WP:GNG is met. Most of what I found was listings in MMA databases. His highest world ranking ever was #137, which doesn't show a very distinguished MMA career. Claiming notability based on the gif source would seem to claim notability for one event without historical significance (WP:NOTNEWS). The other sources are the type I could find for every professional MMA fighter. Papaursa (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mannington Township, New Jersey#Roads and highways. per the only input and as a valid ATD Star Mississippi 02:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointers, New Jersey

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

Named intersection, not a notable community: Ref 6 only says "The second commercial district primarily encompasses land owned by Salem Hospital and around the Pointers intersection." and Ref 4 says "King's Highway rejoins the route at the Pointers, 26.6 m. The latter name comes from the junction of three old roads pointing here toward Salem." Ref 3 says "The juncture of highways north of Salem where the road divides to Woodstown, Sharptown and Penn's Neck." Ref 5 is a map which labels this similar to other places that aren't necessarily communities, like beaches, forts, corners, mills, and Pine Island. Can't find any newpapers.com sources establishing notability and none of these are significant coverage beyond stating that it's an intersection with a typical WP:GNIS error. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major problem seems to be that it wasn't actually an intersection. Going back to 1852 and New Jersey legislation, it turns out that it was the roads ("from Woodstown, Sharpstown, and Sculltown to Salem") that were the "pointers" but this seems to have been mis-read as the junction of the roads being named "pointers". So this looks like multiple layers of comical errors, from roads to intersection, to "populated place" (because of the hospital buildings, no doubt), to "unincorporated community", to "settlement".ISBN 9781581820942, another placename explainer, tells us that it "refers to a road sign", just extending the random walk of things that this name has been comically attached to. Unsurprisingly, given that this wasn't even the thing that the placename explainers thought it was, there's no history here. No Arcadia book. Nothing at all. Equally unsurprisingly, apart from some sloppy journalism the formal address of the Memorial Hospital has been (from when it moved there) "Woodstown-Salem Road" or just "Woodstown Road", not "Pointers". Uncle G (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly sure what is comical about it the evolution of the name the Pointers to reflect the place/locale where three road converge to form one; seems like a natural development of language and colloquial use as is cited in"Acts of the General Assembly of the State of New-Jersey". New Jersey Legislature. 1852. Retrieved March 21, 2022. ...between the junction of the roads from Woodstown, Sharpstown, and Sculltown to Salem (commonly called the Pointers)..., which refers to the junction as a specific spot. (Blevins, Don (2002), Peculiar, Uncertain, and Two Egg, Cumberland House Publishing, ISBN 9781581820942 appears not to be easily accessible online.) Also, there is really anything unusual for building to use a street address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 2022-03-21T16:02:17 (UTC)
      • That's because you aren't reading what's right there in front of you. The roads (plural) were called the Pointers (plural), not the (singular) junction. You've made exactly the same comical error. And if Pointers were the town that the Hospital was in, which it isn't, it would be part of the address, which it isn't. It's 3 roads, not a settlement, not a town, not an unincorporated community, not an evolution of anything. It's 3 roads, from from Woodstown, Sharpstown, and Sculltown to Salem, collectively called the Pointers. The placename explainers read the original wrong, just like you are. Uncle G (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One could also say that like Salem Woodstown Road, the road between Salem & Woodstown, the Pointers Sharpton Road and the Pointers Auburn Road are the roads between Pointers and those two places. But that idea and the one about plurals are moot since sources are easy to read and don't require fanciful interpretations or 'creative' OR suggested above. It's very rare in USA to cite district/neighborhood name in addresses. Much more common to use municipality/CDP name as with the hospital. But that's also irrelevant since there's no claim that Pointers is either.Djflem (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CMT Hot Twenty

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

Non-notable show. While a show that's been on the air since 2013 would normally be considered notable, this is merely a countdown of seemingly arbitrary videos, with no sourcing in sight about the show itself nor any significance to its rankings. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finisterre Point

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

WP:GEOLAND fail. No sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was withdrawn based on improvements made. BD2412 T 16:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Carpenter

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

Fourteen years without a proper source giving any indication of the actual notability of this article subject. No information on their publications or influence in the field as an academic. BD2412 T 01:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hollins (politician)

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

Fails WP:NPOL Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion has been provided. Please discuss on the article talk page instead. (non-admin closure) ansh.666 17:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White-blue-white flag

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

Procedural nomination. This article was determined for merging into 2022 anti-war protests in Russia in a tense and exciting game of two halves recently (9 !votes for keep, 8 for merge, 4 for delete, and 2 for draftify). After merging, it was unmerged and considerably expanded. Discussion on the article's talk page would suggest a snowball keep, and in my own opinion, it should now be kept. For procedural reasons I am bringing it here for full discussion and potential ratification or rejection of the earlier nomination's outcome. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, we would not have needed a new AfD, just someone uninvolved formally closing these discussions.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. We don't need yet another discussion, as the outcome is obvious: The article is meanwhile far beyond our notability threshold per WP:GNG and has plenty of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. All participants of both above mentioned discussions voted to Keep the article. It is a waste of time and resources to have yet another discussion. So, lets snow close the discussion so we can continue working on contents rather than spending energy on unnecessary formalisms.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_April_4&oldid=1096379752"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 4, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.