Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 23

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mišo Dokmanović

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

BLP of an apparently ROTM law professor who shows 5 citations on Google scholar. I can’t see any basis for passing WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 23 January 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! 00:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Hanlon

Bill O'Hanlon (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 demonstrably notable as the subject of any reliable, secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Zero evidence of notability. Article was PRODed in 2013, but no improvement since. Article has a history of poorly sourced puffery. Sundayclose (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Search: Starting with google news... not a lot here.
    • [1] - Alaska Public Media interview about counseling with him as subject matter expert. Possibly notable?
    • [2] - "Honorable Mention" in a songwriting lyric contest (not notable).
    • [3] Mentioned as an exemplar of "clinicians with well-honed active-empathic listening skills and a razor-sharp solution-oriented psychotherapy approach", but only a mention, nothing in depth. Possibly notable?
    • https://www.g**dtherapy.org/blog/warning-signs-of-bad-therapy/ (blacklisted) A user comment here states that Hanlon has been on the Oprah Winfrey show. (Not using this as a source, but as a jumping off point to suggest looking for the Oprah episode...)
Now for google scholar... well, it looks like he's written a number of books that come up here. "Solution-oriented therapy for chronic and severe mental illness", "Shifting contexts: The generation of effective psychotherapy", "Even from a broken web: Brief, respectful solution-oriented therapy for sexual abuse and trauma" just to start naming a few, but the list seems to go on extensively. It also appears that Hanlon is well cited by other authors.
I went into this search thinking I was going to !vote delete, but now I'm leaning keep. Fieari (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Solution-oriented X" is a classic example of an over-used corporate marketing buzz phrase. For me, on the contrary, this points me in the direction of what coverage there is being based on relentless self-promotion (which aligns with what @Sundayclose noted about poorly sourced puffery). The third example is definitely trivial. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Contrary to his claim, he didn't develop solution-oriented therapy. It had already been developed and widely used. He just tweaked it a little, gave his version a name, and then wrote a book that really had nothing new in it. More self-promotional puffery. Therapists like that are a dime a dozen; they have little, if any, scientific research to back up their ideas. They write pop psychology books, and publishers are more than happy to make a few dollars selling them. And they manage to get on talk shows, or even host little viewed shows. Being on Oprah by itself doesn't make someone notable. One thing this guy is really good at: promoting himself. But that doesn't make him notable. Sundayclose (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The truthfulness of his claims is less interesting to me than the fact that he seems to be fairly well cited by other academic authors. Liars can be notable, after all, and self promotion can lead to being noticed, which can make them notable, even if maybe they shouldn't be. Fieari (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of primary material, not a lot of secondary. This is the best item I've found, but unfortunately the "implications" are behind the paywall, so hard to assess for WP:ACADEMIC impact. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these "academic authors" who cite him? University professors and researchers? His name shows up twice on psycnet.apa.org. Both are reviews of one of his books. One review is negative. The other one is mixed. No citations in peer-reviewed journal articles. Hardly a compelling case for academic scholarship. Sundayclose (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two scholarly reviews of his books (even if negative) seem like significant coverage to me. Rusalkii (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusalkii: Which are the two you are referring to? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the two Sundayclose mentioned, I haven't actually looked at them myself. If I misinterpreted them then I strike my keep. Rusalkii (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayclose @Rusalkii: Looking at the various psycnet.apa.org mentions, it appears all are book reviews, i.e.: none are papers citing Bill O'Hanlon on the basis of research done. It would appear that in terms of WP:ACADEMIC, his contributions would appear either negligible or lacking noteworthiness. I suppose the only outstanding question is whether the reviews qualify him as a writer, but most of his books seem to simply get just the single, almost obligatory review from an industry publisher. Evidence of widespread review and commentary appears to be lacking, so I'm not convinced WP:AUTHOR applies either. There appears to be no single standout or seminal work upon which laurels can be rested. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

He's a writer, a pop psychology writer. There is no evidence of any academic scholarship on his part or of citations to him in peer-reviewed journals. I've written a book, and it was published and sold. But it was based more on my experiences working in mental health, not true academic scholarship (even though I'm well-trained in that), and that doesn't qualify me as a notable writer, scholar, or mental health practitioner. Like O'Hanlon, my book got a few reviews, but nothing of much substance. Getting a review or two for a pop psychology book does not rise to the level of notability. I would be embarrassed if someone tried to create a Wikipedia article for me because I am not notable by Wikipedia's standards and there would be suspicion of self-promotion. The only difference between O'Hanlon and hundreds of other people like me is that he has devoted much of his life to self-promotion. His bio fails general, academic, and creative professional biography guidelines. Sundayclose (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Space Between (2021 film)

The Space Between (2021 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)

This film went straight to digital. One negative review, from only one review in existence. See Rotten Tomatoes. Per WP:NFOE, to become notable, a film should have received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. This film does not have two reviews. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:58, 23 January 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. Sandstein 07:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge Prank

Revenge Prank (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 show is covered by a few sources, but they do not prove to be notable. This reality series can be redirected or deleted, since it fails the guidelines set at MOS:TV and WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:40, 23 January 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 SIM (Christian organization). No indication that the radio station passes WP:GNG, consensus is to merge the article. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 19:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Mosoj Chaski

Radio Mosoj Chaski (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 that this is a notable radio station. First source is a map, second source doesn't seem to mention the station, third one is a fanzine. Looking for better sources gave nothing in Google News and very little in general[16], the best are some religious sources supporting the station, or a missionary doing voluntary work at the station. Nothing that meets WP:GNG though. Fram (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Keep (less preferred) - I don't think this needs its own page, as it doesn't look like it'll ever have the sourcing required to be expanded much. This station seems to be a collaboration of three organizations, so perhaps SIM (Christian organization), which is only one of those three, is not the best fit? I'd lean towards List of shortwave radio broadcasters per 78.26's discussion above. (I don't actively object to merging into SIM if that's where others prefer, or if more arguments for it are made) Fieari (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with merging into List of shortwave radio broadcasters is that doing so would give undo weight to this station within the article. Merging it into the article of any one of the organizations that operate it would be acceptable. However, Pioneers International does not have an article and Ethnos360's primary focus seems to be elsewhere, which is why I felt merging into SIM (Christian organization) is the best solution.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to SIM. The sourcing isn't where it needs to be to demonstrate that BCAST has actually been passed. We have had articles created about one-man internet radio streams and fake radio stations that didn't really exist at all but falsely claimed passage of BCAST in an attempt to fly under the radar, so the notability test isn't in the assertion of passing BCAST but in the ability to use WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to properly verify that the claim to passage of BCAST is true. An organization that is actually directly involved in its operations is a better redirect target than just a generic list of shortwave radio stations, however. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 31 January 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 23:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raimonds Dambis

Raimonds Dambis (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 individual. Article is unsourced, and a search online found no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Jkaharper (talk) 22:09, 23 January 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. A consensus emerged that the subject meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Simmons

Jamal Simmons (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)

None of the 3rd party references provide substantial coverage, and the position is not intrinsically notable. The reference in the Shriver book is a single-paragraph author bio of Simmons as one of the contributors; such bios are provided by the person themselves or their agent. The others are just announcements of the appointment. I could find nothing else in Google except brief quotations from his press releases, . DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shriver, Maria (2009-10-20). The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4391-8763-0.
"Meet Jamal Simmons, co-founder of CRVIII Inc". Washington Post. 2015-11-13.
Burke, Melissa Nann. "Detroit native Simmons hired as communications director for VP Kamala Harris". The Detroit News. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
--evrik (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow more comments on the sources mentioned (or finding of others).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep evidently of interest to our readers and article appears to be adequately sourced. NemesisAT (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Examining the two news sources, I see them as mere notices reprinting his CV. Looking at hte onee in the book, it's a blurb about hte individual to accompany a book chapterhe contributed. That's normally self-written, and doesn;'t show notability !!!!
  • 'Comment 2'of interest to our readers I've seen this given as a reason for keeping in a number of recent afds. I am actually quite sympathetic to using this as a criterion- I could write an substantial justification for it. However, it is completely in opposition to the entire principle of notability as we have used it for 20 years now--but I've often expressed my dissatisfaction with the way that it is often interpreted and it seems to be based upon a world where publication was much harder to achieve, perhaps 30 or so years ago. . I would be interested in seeing a discussion proposing it as an alternative guideline. There will be some problems: It does provide a very easy opening for PR people, but the GNG provides an even easier one. It does change WP from a permanent record of things of continuing importance, which has been the usual meaning of "encyclopedia", but so does the GNG in many fields. It does completely destroy the entire policy NOTTABLOID, but the way many AfDs are being decided, we may be doing that already. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has long been far more than an encyclopedia and is much more useful as well. My personal opinion is we shouldn't hold ourselves to what a "traditional" encyclopedia would cover. NemesisAT (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: there are some challenged with the policy-backing of the !votes, or lack thereof.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Although draft space is not a shortcut for deletion. This article has potential after looking at talkpage. (non-admin closure) Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 00:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Mutura

Erick Mutura (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 Kenyan actor. The only reliable source which is the standard is an article that is often done on request. Other sources are just mere mentions. Obviously WP:TOO SOON Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 18:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject is obviously non-notable. 747pilot (talk) 21:34, 23 January 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 23:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Abela

Godfrey Abela (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:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 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 23:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Attard

Norbert Attard (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:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 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 23:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Brædder

John Brædder (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as page creator. This user has been nominating many of my page creations for deletion, and while some are fine and make sense, others do not. I have been inactive on Wikipedia for a while, for similar hounding reasons, but I keep getting mails so I'm gonna pop in and say something here. I understand that mayors of Danish municipalities might not be seen as notable for someone living on the other side of the world, but that doesn't (or shouldn't, at least) matter on Wikipedia. Any modern Danish mayor will very easily meet GNG by getting a lot of coverage in the news (in independent reliable sources such as Dr.dk, Tv2.dk, Danskekommuner.dk, Altinget.dk, etc.). NPOL is for the same reasons also met. It says: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." - that would be pretty much any modern Danish mayor. Especially so John Brædder, one of the few mayors from a local political party. I have expanded the page to include more sources. Kaffe42 (talk) 19:22, 23 January 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 Michael Jones (Canadian musician). Less Unless (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the Rain (Michael Jones album)

After the Rain (Michael Jones album) (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 want to nominate After_the_Rain_(Michael_Jones_album) for deletion. Michael Jones was a terrific artist, but that album is just one of many and is not notable by any stretch. Deleting this article should also mean that it deletes the category to which it belongs, as it is the only article in that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to either the musician's page or the After the Rain disambiguation page are both valid. I think the protocol for albums is to redirect to the musician, but an Admin can be the final judge. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Prodromou

Michalis Prodromou (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)

Despite 107 mins of football to his name, I was unable to find any coverage that would count towards WP:GNG. Searching in English and in Greek, I couldn't find anything decent. Google News has nothing. A source search in Greek also had nothing. Marginal WP:NFOOTBALL pass but nothing towards GNG so, in my view, this should be deleted unless significant coverage turns up. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:03, 23 January 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! 00:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Dunikoski

Linda Dunikoski (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:BIO1E because her notability is based primarily on her prosecution of the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal and the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. Edge3 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 23 January 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 does not meet notability standards. Star Mississippi 21:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ebix Smartclass

Ebix Smartclass (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)

Coverage are press releases, passing mentions, or routing coverage. Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. Could be redirected to Ebix. MarioGom (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a lot of repetition about the ownership history across the Educomp Solutions, Ebix Smartclass Educational Services and this article, all of which are recently created by the same editor. Despite that weight of content, it is probably worth considering the present article as being about the SmartClass product and assessing any notability in that respect. This source (2018) indicates that SmartClass was in use in 75,000 classrooms in India. AllyD (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 23 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin–La Crosse Eagles

Wisconsin–La Crosse Eagles (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 sports program, the article might be keepable if the football program and its two seasons are merged into it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page. It is not much, I know. I was planning to redirect the page when it was reviewed as NPP. The contents of the two articles are identical. scope_creepTalk 00:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep, what's on your talk page is not a consensus. And the two articles are not identical. Wisconsin–La Crosse Eagles football does not and should not contain content related to track and field or other sports aside from football. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article on the Eagles could be expanded by moving/copying a chunk of University_of_Wisconsin–La_Crosse#Athletics. Pichpich (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have a long-standing habit of having articles for the intercollegiate athletic programs of four-year colleges at every level: NAIA, NCAA Div III, and larger. We have done this because such programs typically generate so much press that passing WP:GNG is almost a given. While I suppose it is possible that a 4-year college athletic program might not meet that standard, this program most certainly is not an exception as there are ample third party reliable sources for decades--perhaps even a century.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:19, 26 January 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 23:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie William Bills

Leslie William Bills (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)

Insignificant author, most of his works were self published. Mvqr (talk) 16:25, 23 January 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 23:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Card Sharks (franchise)

Card Sharks (franchise) (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 page was created solely because its inclusion on the original Card Sharks page was removed due to MOS:TVINTL. This page uses a fandom wiki as one of its sources, as well as unsourced information regarding repeats being shown on Sky One and Challenge. BrickMaster02 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 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 deleted. Geschichte (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Hari Singh Sidhu

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

Lacks significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I decided to tag the article for WP:A7 because while the prose says "well-known" there's no referencing, even poor sourcing, to prop up that claim. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. Aneesh

A. Aneesh (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 is a quite promotional article is about a professor. Most major additions have been from a series of single purpose accounts. The article makes several claims of notability - however they are all unsourced. In fact, of the cited sources, the only independent ones do not mention Aneesh. I have looked and I haven't found any decent sourcing. The article mentions a grant from the McArthur Foundation, but please note that it is not one of the selective MacArthur Fellowships AKA 'Genius grants' that might qualify for WP:NPROF #2. It is asserted that 'his work is taught in many universities around the world' but no evidence for this is cited. H-index is 11, nothing special. The article has carried a notability tag for 11 years, so it is time to deal with this one. I believe that this article meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPROF and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 23 January 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 23:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plintron

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

This article has a deletion log which adequately sums up the problems here: G11 for advertisement, A7 for lack of any credible claim of significance, and G12 for copyright infringement (twice), all of this occurring between 2010 and 2016. I submit that given the extensive history of the CSD logs the article should be put before the community to weigh in on its fate, and would suggest salting if deletion does occur to encourage a better built article should any attempt to recreate it again. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting contributions and replies to it from admitted (and now-blocked) editor who is employed by the company in question. Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • This message is from Plintron. I am surprised to see our profile marked for deletion due to activity by third parties. We do not manage or control this page and have stepped in today after seeing the changes on our profile bought to attention by a customer. If there is any advertising / PR content kindly let us know so we will change it.
Also, we have not been updating this page ourselves so we have not checked 404 errors which can be sorted out. Please indicate the same.
However, I must state the comments made are highly obnoxious and are applicable to almost all company profiles.
It is unusual to give any user admin rights over others. Do these admin users have qualifications in advertising so as to call our profile an investment journal or advertisement? We went through other company profiles and all over the text is the same. So why have the other company profiles not been flagged for advertising? It’s clear that someone has a malicious interest as they claim from 2010 to 2016, there have been incidents of copyright infringement. It’s clear someone is stalking our profile based on the circumstantial evidence. Kindly let us know what “copyright infringement” has been done by us so a certain action can be taken by us.
The text added was unverified which is against Wiki rules. It appears deletion by some user raised the hackles of the user who posting the content and was probably acting with malafide intentions.
Also, the comments seem to be slanderous – For example, Calling awards by respected business journals and respected international organizations by GSMA as Vanity awards. It would be interesting to get the GSMA’s views on its innovation award being called a “vanity award” and it clearly smacks of defamation. Also, whichever user has made these comments have no clue of the telecom MVNO business as standard terms like “solutions” are called buzzwords. Will Unilever get penalized for referring to its PureIt as a clean drinking water solution?
As per the wiki code of conduct, all information must be verifiable, factual, preferably with links to references, and not be judgemental or make allegations. There has been a clear violation in some of the edits by third parties and one cannot blame the company for that and remove its page.
I would urge the community to take action again trolling users who are misusing admin rights. The IP addresses are visible to all. It is also unfair to remove a company profile based on actions by third party users some clearly having vested interests,
If there are any real issues of advertising content, copyright violations, PR, 404 etc. please give examples so that it will be removed by us and only facts presented. Plintron is committed to following the Wiki code of conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plintrongroup (talk • contribs) 07:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do company profiles, as we are an encyclopaedia project. Ad hominems against the users making arguments in good faith that the article should be deleted reflects terribly on you and the company you purport to represent. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Plintrongroup: Respectively, from the top:
  • We'll handle the cleanup. Most company profiles are created and/or maintained by groups that have a press department and are adamant that the article stays a certain way, which is not at all what we are. We are a non for profit encyclopedia that anyone can edit...within reason. And by "reason", I mean within established policies, guidelines, consensus, and when applicable disclosure. Many groups that attempt to add there company's article here run into trouble because their minds are preset for "business" and not "information", so attempting to cleanse the article, bully others, or rally the company to the defense of an article end up backfiring to some greater or lesser extent. If you have faith in your company and its products and/or service, then you can afford to invest some of that faith in the contributors here to see to it that the article meets policy and guideline statues.
  • My qualifications have nothing to do wtih advertising, they have to do with the above mentioned policies and guidelines which I'm betting very heavily that you haven't read up on or are otherwise largely unfamiliar with. Any user can nominate any article for deletion provide that they can show just cause for the article to be listed, they don't need to be admins. In this case, as the filing party, my decision to list was based on a questionable multi-year history of deletions to include a pair of very ominous G12 deletions (to the uninitiated, thats blatent copyright infringement. Anything on here that borrows too extensively from copyrighted sources gets purged or gets the axe, no exceptions). Make it clear I find no copyright infringement, but given that its happened twice before and weighed against the already noted A7 and G11 arguments and it does help make the case for deletion.
  • Arguing "if this then that" or "why us and not them" earns you no stock and no return on investment, but does demonstrate you are not going a formulating a reasonable argument for the retention of the article. Your homework, then, is to read up on the information presented at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and User:ReaderofthePack/Common notability arguments. Arguments on these trains of thought rarely if ever leave the station.
  • I highly doubt someone's stalking your article. Remember, anyone can edit. Its more likely some overzealous group is attempting to make the company look so much better by adding a lot a stuff that doesn't belong in the article, or if it does, deserves far less attention in the article, and a result the article stand out for being very poorly composed. Its also possible that you've contracted with one of those "wikiwriting" companies that claims that they can get your article on here and keep it there (Before you get any ideas, or if that is in fact what's happened here, you should know that many of those companies are on several Wikipedia watch-lists for blatant violations of numerous policies, so if you thinking hiring one of them is going to help it won't. More likely, it'll result in higher level intervention and problem recreation protection. Keep that in mind going forward.) If you want to blend in with heard, then you need plain white clothing or grey clothing, because all the brightly colored shirts and sunglasses and golden chains and such only serves to draw the wrong kind of attention to you on the editing plains. The more an article looks like the one to its left and right the greater the odds are it stays. "Modest is hottest", as the old saying goes.
  • If you intend to call out editors - admins, users, isp contributors, etc - you need proof. Otherwise, all you're demonstrating is bad faith. More ominously, if you intend to call out editors and/or users, you need to refrain from using words that imply legal language (in this case specifically, "defemation"). Legal language puts you on path that almost always ends in a permanent block for construed legal action. Anything you type on here that can be reasonably construed to be a legal threat or construed to have a chilling effect comes under this heading, we have an absolute zero tolerance policy on this matter, so I implore you weigh your words with care when typing and read it out loud before pressing "save". If it sounds questionable or suggests the involvement of the company's legal department, then it probably needs to be rewritten by someone with a more diplomatic mindset. Make it clear I see no legal threats - overt or otherwise - in any of the above statements, but history shows us that companies usually assume that imply some sort of legal action will persuade us to return to a better or more preferable version written up by someone in their PR departments and almost all of them end up very upset when instead of getting their article back to where they think it looks best they end up blocked and the article(s) in question protected until the legal threat or legal action (whatever they intended it to be) is resolved.
  • Who is "us"? Is this a company account? Under the terms of use its one person to an account, so there can be no corporate accounts on site. Additionally, your username needs to be changed, in accordance with the username policy, a user name may not 1) only contain the names of companies, organizations, websites, musical groups or bands, teams, or creative groups, 2) be promotional in nature, or appear to advertise, promote, sell, or gain support or user base of any person, company, market, product, channel, or other good or service, 3) imply that your user account will be shared between more than one person, 4) only describe a role, title, or position within an organization that can be represented or held by different people. If this is a person working for or otherwise affiliated with the company, you need to publicly disclose any conflict of interest, and if you are being paid to edit on behalf of the company in question you must also disclose these paid contributions in accordance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Failure to declare either option - or both, as is sometimes the case - is grounds for permanent block from the admin corps.
  • I would recommend starting with a change in username first, which is best handled quickly before someone with less patients issues a username block. You can find more information on changing your username at Wikipedia:Changing username. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An encyclopedia includes profiles of countries, companies, etc. so kindly get semantics correct. Also, this is not ad hominem but a statement of violation of the wiki code of conduct as unverified content has been put up by users. It is not against wiki policy to add a page about a company and its products.
    IP addresses of users have been cross-checked and are found to be coming from servers of business rivals. Are comments made on behalf of business rivals that are not verifiable assumed to be in good faith?
    If you reflect on the comments, they are basically trolling the company profile and not constructive aimed at improving the article. The comments by a little blue bori are also directly insulting me. This user comment about other people’s articles also shows a pattern of slander and racism.
    If the intention of the users critiquing the article is constructive and made in good faith and not an attempt at cyberbullying, defamation and blackmail then revert to the issues we have raised. Please indicate the advertising, Copyright infringements, and 404 with a concrete example so they can be rectified in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plintrongroup (talk • contribs) 09:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please indent when you reply. You can do so using Shift+8 for the green box or : for a boxless indent. Also, I draw your attention once more to both our username policy and remind you that there are to be no legal threats (which includes actions that may result in a chilling effect). TomStar81 (Talk) 10:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this looks more like attack on old issues of advertising dating 6 years abck and removal of unproven legal content. It can be rewritten so as to look less like LinkedIn profile though and more of a company entry. This company features regularly in the MVNOs World Congress [17] and supplies solutions to Lycamobile a top 10 MVNO presents in 24 countries. Also Dun&Bradstreet is a reputable award. Hence should be retained as its useful for MVNO industry researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbtigon (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC) — Sbtigon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - There really does not appear to be anything usable in the citations, this is press release and routine trade publication buzz. Add to that the tangle of paid editors, a new account (Plintrongroup, above) that is literally a mouthpiece of the business, and a handful of detractors trying to double the article size with a litany of lawsuit minutiae. There's nothing to salvage here. Zaathras (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TNT I tried cleaning up the article and gave up quickly. If there's anything there, it's a small fraction of the current article, and blowing it up to start over is a workable solution if enough notability can be found. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Ryan Hall

DJ Ryan Hall (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)

Can't find anything to suggest Hall passes WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Full source analysis will follow. I found Tudo Pelo Futebol in a WP:BEFORE search but, with no games listed there, it doesn't establish notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jabir Khalilov

Jabir Khalilov (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)

More non-notable academics from Azerbaijan. Again, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Sourcing is entirely to associated sources. Mako001 (C)  (T)  13:33, 23 January 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 13:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hingeley

Ben Hingeley (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 for the lack of multiple significant, independent, secondary non-routine coverage, and all criteria of the new WP:NMOTORSPORT. The article contains a WP:ROUTINE coverage from the team he particiapted for (hence not independent of the subject), and my searches bring similiar announcements. Seems to have retired from racing after 2019, so it's unlikely something will change. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MSport1005 voting speedy keep on this is absolutely ridiculous, as he doesn't really meet any criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT. He didn't really do actually anything notable, nor there's "quality" you are speaking of. That he'd be the only European F3 without an article is an useless fact (and there are more that should be nominated). As for the sources you posted: 1) he was a WRDA member, meaning it's not an independent source, 2) quote galore (meaning again, not independent) in what's a source of unclear reliability, 3) not a significant coverage + seems to be a blog about local things in Abergele, 4) is basically quotes from his dad + 3 sentences and 5) doesn't meet what's said in WP:SPORTCRIT ("Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage.", it's local and this is a race report coverage). 6) is WP:ROUTINE (we are talking about routine events here, that is a signing to a team), and 7) is the same as 6) + doesn't seem to be a reliable source. I did a lot of digging, but I didn't find multiple sources that'd give him notability per WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 'quality' bit is just an opinion, I always saw Hingeley as a good driver hindered by sub-par machinery and a lack of budget. Not that it matters anyway, I just never imagined him being nominated. On the other hand, anything that you don't recognise doesn't necessarily "seem unreliable", that's just prejudicial scepticism. Check WP:NOTROUTINE too. MSport1005 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I understand the context now, thank you for explaining it. Sorry if I sounded too harsh, since I didn't want to come out that way. My stance about (un)reliable sources stands: Automobil Sport doesn't even have a team/staff page, Abergele Post is a blog handled by Gareth Morlais, and RNW doesn't give me many hopes reading the staff page. There's no bias or prejudice from my side (that's absurd), it's all opinionated on something. Also thank you for showing me that essay, but I am not a fan of essays, nor do I agree with it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... you were making very fair points until that last sentence. MSport1005 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that's all you're saying as a reply, those "fair points" didn't really do anything. Essays are only viewpoints (and my disagreement with some of them has no bearing on this AfD). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have compiled a source assessment table to justify my rationale, based on sources provided by MSport1005 in this discussion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty complete assessment, thank you. I have now found these [25] [26] which are announcements but not necessarily ROUTINE, [27] [28] covering the same topic with less precision (not as confident about them), [29] in anticipation of his GP3 test (the original article at motorsport-news.co.uk isn't accessible anymore, I've tried rescuing it at web.archive.org to no avail), [30] originally from a local paper covering single-seater win and championship lead, and [31] an interview from early 2018. Still stand by my keep !vote although the 'speedy' was a bit overzealous from my side. MSport1005 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I can see why MSport1005 sees this as a keep case, but I have to disagree. The coverage in the article and provided by MSport1005 does not satisfy the requirements of the GNG, which is quite plainly shown in GhostOfDanGurney's assessment table. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:39, 24 January 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 13:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadeq Al-Ahmed

Sadeq Al-Ahmed (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)

Another in a line of Soccerway mirror articles created by long-term vandal Mhsohaib. While he has participated in 3 games of professional football, his playing time is only 32 minutes, which is less than half a game of football. He has played in a cup game but not while playing for a WP:FPL club at the time.

Searching "صادق الأحمد" yielded very little coverage and none of it seems to be significant. I found a transfer announcement in Ar Riyadiyah, which is one sentence long. I then found trivial mentions in Al Yaum and Al Riyadh. None of this demonstrates WP:GNG. Consensus is that such articles should be deleted unless significant coverage can be demonstrated. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isakhan Isakhanli

Isakhan Isakhanli (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 and WP:NACADEMIC. Part of a group of articles created by paid editors some time (several years) ago, all connected to Khazar University. Sourcing is total rubbish, and is all to the University itself. If redirected, it should be TNT'd first. Mako001 (C)  (T)  13:14, 23 January 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 03:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Electrographic Art Association

Hungarian Electrographic Art Association (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 independent sources: Publications by the organization about itself, but no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:NORG Vexations (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate delete Many self-published reference issues, and many links leading to nowhere. Severestorm28 01:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I likewise cannot find independent, in-depth coverage that I'd expect a notable arts organisation to get, and cannot therefore see that it meets the GNG. firefly ( t · c ) 17:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bogotá Film Festival

Bogotá Film Festival (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 has been un-referenced since it's creation in 2014 except for links to sources having to do with the films and I couldn't find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE that would qualify for it for notability. Even the Spanish language article only has a single dead reference. So no evidence that this is a notable film festival. Adamant1 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily classify that as SIGCOV, given that in the 760-page book, there is only a two-paragraph subtle mention. The book does state that the "Festival de Cine de Bogota" became the top international film festival in the country, which is a good indication of notability; however, there is no in-text citation or reliable source to validate that claim. The author of the book is not necessarily notable either. Multi7001 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that is WP:SIGCOV. It doesn't matter how long the rest of the book is, but there is nearly a page visible to me consisting of a section with the name of this festival as its title, and I can't see how long this continues on the next page(s). There is absolutely nothing in our guidelines that requires sources themselves to have citations (that way lies infinite regression) or their authors to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is always wise to look at the background of the author(s) of the book just like you would consider the author of a news media post, as any civilian can publish a paperback or e-book about their own thoughts, obtain an ISBN, and get listed on Google Books. The claim included in those several sentences of the book that mention the subject is sensational and may require validation through additional sources. The author added in-text citations for other claims but not that one. Eitherway, I don't see nearly any indication of notability, as the subject would require multiple reliable, independent sources with SIGCOV. The page fails WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an indication of notability either based on that reference. I doubt Phil Bridger cares though. I had just reported him to ANI for attacking me in another AfD when he posted this. Since this and the other AfD are the only ones he's participated in for at least a couple of days, my guess is that he posted the link here after looking through my edits to find ones he could single out. He also attacked me in an un-related discussions after he made this comment. Which I think confirms that he was going around looking for edits of mine to scrutinize because I reported him to ANI and not really putting any thought into it beyond that. Especially in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what on Earth does that have to do with whether a dedicated section of at least a few hundred words in a book published by a reputable publisher is significant coverage? And, for the record, you can see in the history that I made my first post in this discussion 90 minutes before you created the ANI report, and edited the article before that. Maybe I have a time machine? Or are your accusations simply more evidence that you are making things up to create a battleground rather than making good-faith efforts to reach a consensus? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. It was during the other disagreement we were having. Although your correct that it was before the ANI complaint. That's on me for not being good at reading military time. That said, I find it to believe that it was merely random chance when there's hundreds of AfD that you could have participated in, but somehow managed to only comment on this AfD at the exact same time we were arguing about something in another one. Especially considering that you targeted me before with the whole racism nonsense. If you don't like me pointing out the obvious then I guess it's on you for following me around and not leaving me alone after I've asked you to multiple times. Don't act petty toward me and then cry foul about me treating things like a battleground or being bad faithed when I point out the facts. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But, Multi7001, the book was published by Rowman & Littlefield, not the author. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book as a standalone source does not establish notability for the subject. There should be multiple reliable sources with SIGCOV. Perhaps there may be more sources in foreign media. Multi7001 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Al minuto: Película chilena triunfa en el festival de cine de bogotá. (2011, Oct 20). La Estrella De Panamá Retrieved from [34]
  • Comedias latinas, plato fuerte del festival de cine de bogotá. (2014, Oct 16). El Espectador Retrieved from [35]
  • En corto. (2014, Nov 07). Reforma Retrieved from [36]
  • Finalizó la edición número 37 del festival de cine de bogotá. (2020, Oct 29). CE Noticias Financieras Retrieved from [37]
  • Inicia el 26 festival de cine de bogotá. (2009, Oct 01). Notimex Retrieved from [38]
  • La teta asustada triunfa en el festival de cine de bogotá. (2009, Oct 10). Frontera.Info Retrieved from [39]
  • Se inauguró la edición número 37 del festival de cine de bogotá. (2020, Oct 22). CE Noticias Financieras Retrieved from [40]
  • Luis Noe, O. G. (2010, Sep 10). Festival de cine de bogotá. El Tiempo Retrieved from [41]
(All are Subbies). Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just going off the titles of references I highly doubt that they are in-depth coverage of the film festival and not about other things. For instance one is called "The scared tit triumphs at the bogotá film festival." Whereas Another is called "Al minute: Chilean film triumphs at the Bogota Film Festival." Neither of those are about the festival and I highly doubt whatever degree it's discussed in those sources as opposed to the films is enough to be in-depth coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked them, these two are final reports of winners, such as Audrey Diwan’s ‘Happening’ wins 2021 Venice Golden Lion on historic night. Except a couple of very short, worthless ones they are all decent journalistic articles covering various editions of the festival. Cavarrone 17:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, basically for User:Phil Bridger. That book source alone is a remarkable proof of notability, you don't get a one page+ entry (plus a dozen of additional citations) in an Historical Dictionary of South American Cinema published by Rowman & Littlefield if you aren't a notable subject. Sources have to be weighted and not just counted, probably there are little festivals which have hundreds of easily available English-language newspaper sources, but which will be never eligible to be part of a printed encyclopedia by a reputable editor. The additional sources listed above are just a confirmation of passing the letter (or better, the number) of GNG requirements. Side note, besides 760 pages for a vast topic like South American Cinema from origins till today are not that big, the total number of pages of a book does not affect SIGCOV, otherwise an entry in Britannica (which is over 32,000 pages) would count for little more than nothing. Cavarrone 15:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the book establishing remarkable notability. With the other new sources that just emerged, I don't meddle with anything that is outside of the English language; and so, if there are multiple reliable sources in foreign mass media that demonstrate SIGCOV, and not passing mentions, there should be no problem with its inclusion. However, if the majority or all of the sources are in a foreign language, perhaps the page should be moved to a foreign subdomain of Wiki. Multi7001 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are a newbie, but most of the arguments you are making in this AfD are strange theories wich are not-policy based, if not against-policy. The last one is covered in WP:V and in the already mentioned WP:SIGCOV, "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language". You can propose a wording change in the direction you hope, but I don't foresee too much luck, I don't think there would be a consensus in mass-deleting Japanese, Chinese, French, Italian, German, South-American topics, and basically every subject coming from a non English-speaking country (which except a few exceptions will always have an overwhelming majority of coverage in its native language). This is an international encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia of themes popular in US/UK. BTW the article is currently sourced by three English-language sources. Cavarrone 09:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that this an international encyclopedia IMO that shouldn't mean that people should be able to post non-English sources for a subject just because the source has the name of the of subject in it's title and then be like "Hey, no one here speaks the language including me and I can't really say if the sources talk about the subject in-depth either, but we should all assume they do since it's an international encyclopedia in English." Which is pretty much what this amounts to. We know the sources say "Bogota Film Festival" in them, we know nothing else outside of that because no here speaks Spanish, but we're are suppose to assume the references are in-depth "because international encyclopedia in English" or whatever. Put more simply, where do the guidelines say we can skip the requirement that the sources be in-depth as long as they aren't in English?
In the meantime I think that Multi7001 makes a good point in their last sentence, in that if none of us can determine if the references are in-depth or not because we don't speak the language then it's probably better to leave it to people who can make that determination, instead of just assuming things. Which in this case would likely be Spanish Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We know the sources say "Bogota Film Festival" in them, we know nothing else outside of that because no here speaks Spanish, but we're are suppose to assume the references are in-depth "because international encyclopedia in English". Lol, no one said that, so such a rant is pointless! In 2022 it's not that problematic translating foreign languages with translating tools, and personally I have a decent understanding of Spanish even without them. My only issue was that the sources were behind paywall, but I just realized they are accessible via Wikilibrary, and are in fact articles about some editions of the festival, including the ones you claimed were not. Cavarrone 17:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Why do you assume that nobody here knows Spanish? It's not exactly an obscure language to people who can read the English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh because no one in this discussion has said they do? Otherwise I'm more then willing to strike that part of my comment out if you can point to anywhere that someone has said "I speak Spanish and know these sources are in-depth because I speak the language well enough to have read them."
@Cavarrone: I'll say a similar thing to you. Where has anyone here said they speak Spanish, have read the sources, and can say that they are in-depth? Djm-leighpark specifically said when he posted the references that his Spanish is limited and that the references "seem relevant." How exactly does that statement disagrees with what I said? In what world does "they seem relevant, but my Spanish is limited" mean "I know they have in-depth coverage because I speak Spanish good enough to have read them"? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you have cut and sewn comments by three different users as to invent a fake, easily rebuttable argument that noone in their right mind would had ever advanced, an argument which has nothing to do with my "keep" reasoning above (which is not even based on the Spanish sources), and which has nothing to do with my exchange with Multi7001 (who has actually said something different from what you claim he said). At this point I suspect you're just blatantly bludgeoning the process and trolling, I have nothing left to say. Cavarrone 21:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I cited was from a single user, Djm-leighpark, and it was a direct quote of something they said in their keep vote. "my Spanish is sort of limited to cerveza but the following cites seem relevant." Nowhere in my last two comments that I'm aware of did I reference anything that was said by Multi7001. Let alone was it something I invented by sewing together the comments of three users. Which is a rather bizarre claim. So I have zero clue what your talking about. Nor am I sure how citing what someone says is bludgeoning the process. I'm not trying to "win" anything here. I'm just stating the facts. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how neutrally stating the facts of what someone said is bludgeoning. Since that's not my intention.
That said, Strawmaning me about inventing comments is a rather bludgeoning and bad faithed way to treat this. Making up such spurious and easily disprovable claims does nothing to move the AfD discussion along either. I could ultimately give a crap if someone here can speak Spanish and can tell us if the references are in-depth or not. If anyone can, then by all means do so. But this needless, petty, off-topic side bickering by you and Phil Bridger doesn't help anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark said that they didn't know Spanish very well. You said that nobody in this discussion knows Spanish. Is it really so difficult to see that you can't assume of everybody what one user has said about themself? Can't we just get on with discussing whether we should have an article without you introducing such irrelevancies all the time that mean that people just get tired of getting them out of the way before we get into a proper discussion? You are the only one who has introduced such "needless, petty, side bickering", nobody else. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one had said they spoke Spanish well enough to read the sources at that point and we had been discussing it for a while by then. So it's not that much of a stretch to concluded that no one involved in the conversation could. Otherwise, they would have said so. If someone had of I would have been cool with that and asked them what they thought of the references. Like I'm not going to just assume everyone here is from Bogotá where this film festival is located when no one has said they are, just so a couple of people won't jump down my throat about it. Get real. We can all pretty reasonably assume none of us are from Bogota without me saying so turning into a massive disagreement. Your the one that turned it to a petty side debate by making it about me instead of keeping your bickerish personal opinions about me to yourself until someone who speaks Spanish could came along to say if the sources were in-depth or not. In the meantime if there's an ongoing conversation about Spanish where no one has said they speak Spanish beyond a basic level then I'm going to assume no one in the conversation can speak it beyond a basic level. Your petty, judgmental disagreement with me over that isn't my problem and it has nothing to do with the AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Editar conflicto) Hasta la vista, baby.

References

  • Keep. The book found by Phil Bridger is significant coverage, in my opinion (and its publisher, Rowman_&_Littlefield, doesn't seem to be a vanity press so Multi7001's concern on this is not relevant here). Some of the Spanish-language sources found by Djm-leighpark are passing mentions (about films that happened to be at the festival), but several which outline specific years' festival offerings seem to provide useful supplementary information. For instance, in the few sentences before the firewall kicks in, the 2020 CE Noticias Financieras one asserts "The Bogotá Film Festival has specialized in feature films by new directors". Not much, but indicative that we're going past random incidental mentions while purely focusing on individual movies. It's hard with all the subscription sources, but seems pretty clear we have quite a bit more to go on here than with many stubs. Martinp (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've just come back from holiday so I haven't had a chance to look for sources yet. But I live in Bogota, and can state anecdotally that this film festival has become firmly established in the city in recent years. Granted, it hasn't supplanted the Cartagena Film Festival as Colombia's most important film festival, but I'd be fairly confident that I could find announcements of it in the country's newspapers every year. Richard3120 (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, just for the 2021 edition alone, here is an article in one of Colombia's three main daily newspapers, El Espectador [42] and another in the premier weekly magazine Semana [43] (Semana is Colombia's nearest equivalent to The Economist or Time magazine, so it's reputable). And it was covered by national radio station Caracol Radio [44], national public TV station Canal Trece [45], Shock (Colombia's long-running and only music and culture magazine) [46], and I suspect others. Richard3120 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bogotá International Film Festival is a different subject that has a page. Perhaps the subject may be known in foreign mass media under a different name variation. Multi7001 (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already looked into that and they aren't the same film festival. This one was founded in 1984 and the international one was founded in 2015. They also have different awards/websites and so on. So it's extremely doubtful that media outlets are referring to the same festival under a different name variation. I probably should have mentioned it in the nomination message so there wouldn't be any confusion. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source that recently emerged appears reliable, even though it is unreadable because of the paywall and its foreign nature. However, it does state Bogotá International Film Festival in the content [47]. I don't know if the other Proquest sources are pursuant to the subject per the paywall. Multi7001 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though your reference, which I assume is the last one that Djm-leighpark provided, is from an anonymous author/blog/uploader/whatever. So it isn't usable for notability. @Djm-leighpark: Hasta la vista, baby, maybe check your references better next time before you post them. Also, we should be posting links to the original sources if we can. Not random databases that are just acting as hosting/fille mirrors. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit to misplelling Notimex as Notimax. The anonymous can be quite normal for a publication if they are standing by the content. The citation should have read: Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter where it comes from. Anonymous sources are still unusable for notability. Just like an op-ed isn't considered a reliable source even if it's being printed in an otherwise reputable news outlet. In this case it's kind of bizarre that it's written by an anonymous person in the first place. For all we know it could be an op-ed, letter to the editor, or paid for piece. Otherwise you'd think they would just say who the author is if they are an employee of the company.
If it's an op-ed, which is my suspicion, then WP:NEWSORG says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." From what I can tell of the source it's stating facts. So it's not a reliable reference. Even if it was an opinion piece, it would have to be attributed to the author. Which can't be done if the author is anonymous. Maybe the editor, but Notmix isn't really the editor if it's an op-ed, letter, paid piece, or anything along those lines. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a categorical statement, "anonymous sources are still unusable for notability" is wrong. It is unsupposed by WP:NEWSORG, and there are definitely highly reputable news organizations that publish news articles without a credited author, such as The Economist. By all means let's make sure we're finding sources related to the right entity, and with a reasonable presumption of independence, and contributing to SIGCOV. But let's not invent ad hoc hurdles and assume they're part of deletion policy. Martinp (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: I cited a policy when making the statement. So in no way was it an ad hoc hurdle. I'm sure there's exceptions to what WP:NEWSORG says. There are to every policy. The question is does the exception apply or not in this case. Which is way I posed the possible scenarios as to why this might be an anonymous work. Under some it might be usable for notability, others, likely not. I never claimed otherwise. Ultimately we don't know why it was written anonymously though. So at this the whole thing is a mental masturbation exercise, that some people can argue means it must be reliable and usable for notability because of. Personally, I prefer to air on the side of caution because there's other references that the authors of. I never claimed my opinion about it is the de-facto, 100% policy based way to do it every time in every instance. I think it would be a way to approach it here though, but again, that's just me.
As a side to that it's ridiculous that everything I say has to be proceeded by a long-winded disclaimer were I'm forced to point out things that would be apparent if people read my comments, like that my statement wasn't ad hoc because I supported it with a direct quote from WP:NEWSORG, but whatever. I'll do it if I need to. Especially if I continue to be strawmanned over such inconsequential, ridiculous nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most news articles are published without identifying the author, and those are the articles for which the publication itself takes responsibility for reliability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's bullshit for a number of reasons, least of which is because there's no way in hell to measure if most news are published without identifying the author or not, but it's a completely ridiculous assertion anyway. Especially in this case. I didn't look through every single article published by Notimex, but most of the ones I saw identified the author. I could really give two craps if some local special interest news blog in the appalachian mountains or whatever doesn't say who the authors of their blog posts are. That's not what this discussion is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the top, most reliable news outlets in the world, not some local special interest news blog in the Appalachian Mountains. Can't we have a straighforward discussion without such idiocy as you keep introducing? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idiocy that keeps getting introduced is you discussing "the top, most reliable news outlets in the world" instead of Notimex where this reference comes from. Your free to apply what I said to the New York Times. It isn't Notimex so I don't care about it in relation to this discussion anymore then I do some local, special interest news blog in the Appalachian Mountains. What's so hard for you to grasp about the fact that I'm not going to have an off topic, side discussion about news outlets that no one is providing references from? If you can provide evidence that most articles published by Notimex are published without identifying the author and your able to determine why this published anonymously then be my guest. But I don't care about your opinion on vague, handwavy, general, topics that aren't relevant to this like wider trends in the news publishing world or whatever. At this point I'm seriously starting to think your just trolling. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: To me it seems that you cited a policy which supports what you quoted about "editorial commentary", but not what you categorically wrote about anonymous sources being unusable for notability. (Editorial commentary may or may not be anonymous, and anonymous articles may or may not be reliable.) You are then directly using this apparent misinterpretation of policy to attempt to reject the Notimex source out of hand. However, it's clear from the above that being challenged like this is causing you stress, and I regret that. So perhaps it is best if we leave further consideration of the merits of these arguments to the AFD closer, who will if necessary judge validity of reasoning as part of gleaning consensus. Martinp (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: Nowhere did I say anonymous sources are categorically unusable for notability. That's why I specifically said "If it's an op-ed, which is my suspicion, then WP:NEWSORG says...." What part of "if it's an op-ed" sounds like "anonymous sources are categorically unusable for notability" to you? I also said that "if it was an opinion piece, it would have to be attributed to the author. Which can't be done if the author is anonymous." Again, what part of "if it's an opinion piece" translates into "anonymous sources are categorically unusable for notability."? I'm not stressed by being "challenged", I'm stressed by the fact that what I'm being challenged on is obvious strawman nonsense that can be easily disproven if you actually took the time read what I wrote. It shouldn't take this teeth pulling and obfuscation just to discuss the merits of a reference. Especially since we have plenty of other ones that aren't anonymous. So arguing over the minutia of the one from Notimex and who what in what way blah blah is extremely pointless. You and Phil Bridger are strawmanning me over something that literally doesn't matter. That it's easily disprovable nonesense is just the icing on the cake. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your refusal to get what people are saying is so bad that it's not even wrong. It's just not possible to explain to you how things are, because you always project onto the person you are discussing with all of your own failings. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's weird how you never seem to have an actual argument. Everything with you boils down to "wwwaahhh why aren't you listening?" and then some insult about how I'm a loser or something along those lines. It's odd that you can't take apart what I say in an actually effective, reasonable manor. Instead you resort to using grade school bully antics. Especially considering how much you've acted like your so intellectually superior to me and more knowledgeable about this then I am Etc. Etc. Supposedly I'm the incompetent one and the failure. Yet your completely incapable of writing a single message that involves logic beyond the level of a spoiled 5 year. Everything you've said essentially boils down to you not liking that I'm not building the sand castle exactly how you want it to be built. So you throw the toys around and whine like a spoiled toddler. That's it. You literally have nothing else. Have fun with that. I'm done with the discussion. We should really give other people a chance to share their opinions. It's not just your sand castle. Stop acting like it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Nowhere did I say anonymous sources are categorically unusable for notability.": "It doesn't really matter where it comes from. Anonymous sources are still unusable for notability."" But at this point anything counts, it's just a bludgeoning the process and WP:GAME festival. I am considering going at ANI for the mess you are causing here, which I suspect it's not such an unusual occurrence in your contribution history. --Cavarrone 09:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  • Comment: As a rule of thumb, and there will be exceptions, sources dated before 2015 and around October will usually refer to this event, sources for the other one will likely be c.2015 or later, and probably around March as well. I must stress there will be exceptions.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reaffirm my keep' !vote. I've let this settle for a few days and have reviewed the discussion above. I continue to believe that the material in the Peter Rist book (source raised by Phil Bridger), together with the material in the Notimex source are already enough to meet my bar for independent-enough, significant-enough coverage to not warrant deletion. Further info can be brought in from other sources, with appropriate editorial diligence to make sure they refer to the right festival and to avoid refbombing. Martinp (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI, but you don't have to reaffirm your vote. They only count it once anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 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 13:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muaiad Admawi

Muaiad Admawi (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)

Almost a decade ago, this man played 74 mins of professional sport. The sources are database websites only and the article is just a prose version of his Soccerway entry. Slstat is preserved here and clearly has no WP:GNG coverage. He has a cup game listed on his Soccerway page but this occurred when Al Wehda FC were not playing in the 2013–14 Saudi Professional League following their relegation in the 2012–13 Saudi Professional League, therefore it doesn't confer notability.

Searching "مؤيد أدماوي" yields a couple of passing mentions in Sport KSA and a match day squad listing in Makkah News. None of this complies with GNG either. Clear consensus from well over 100 recent AfDs that footballers who trivially meet WP:NFOOTBALL but fail GNG should be deleted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:03, 23 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riniki Bhuyan Sarma

Riniki Bhuyan Sarma (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)

Except being Chief Minister's wife, she has no notability. Her page was created after her husband became Chief Minister. Moreover, being an owner of a local news channel can not make her eligible for Wiki. Requesting higher level to look up the matter. - Arunudoy (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:02, 23 January 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 CNET. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cooley

Brian Cooley (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)

Person has not come closer to passing WP:JOURNALIST since the page was first nominated for deletion in 2006. Despite being a high-level editor at CNET, sources about (not by) this person are scarce. If there is no consensus to delete, possibly redirect to CNET or Buzz Out Loud. KidAd • SPEAK 18:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is a tough one. There's an article by another Cnet person about his 1988 Ford station wagon and literally hundreds of hits on articles he's written over the years. Based on the volume of work he's done, I think he might just be notable, or at least earn a sub-seciton in the main CNet article. He's given interviews for NPR as a tech expert, so he's somewhat well known in the media landscape.Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to CNET. Coverage of the individual himself is limited to minimal author bios on various works he has produced. No indication in teh article or in searches that passes the GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Church High School

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

I am unable to find sourcing required to meet ORG. Articles limited to event listings and mentions of return to live schooling and similar, but no in depth coverage of the school or its theatre. Star Mississippi 23:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the reference was in-depth, which I agree with Star Mississippi that it isn't, there still needs to be an in-depth regional/national reference for something to be notable. The fact that it took you 30 minutes to find a trivial local source is probably a good indicator that one doesn't exist. Maybe if we all spent a couple more hours of digging we could find a few more local, special interest news stories about their annual bake sale, Sadie Hawkins Day dance or similar, but that's not how notability works. One reason is that per WP:REPUTABLE we only use reputable sources and reputable sources are the "analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors." Special interest local news stories are very rarely, if ever, any of those things. The story you added about them winning the award definitely does not contain the author's analysis, opinions, or views of the topic. Maybe analysis, but if so extremely tangentially and in a very run of the mill way. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that some of the special interest stories can have a place as long as they are merely supplementing the larger notability of the story. The source I added is a foot in the door suggesting that there is archival coverage of the history of this school that suggests it had an importance in Alberta history. The Calgary Herald, btw, is certainly reputable: It is one of if not the largest newspapers distributed in Calgary, which is Alberta's largest urban center, and the paper is the 10th largest in Canada according to List of newspapers in Canada by circulation.
The real question is does the school itself have notability, or is it moreso its namesake that does. That's what further digging would have to reveal.  DiscantX 23:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see you were probably referring to the Airdrie Today source. While I agree that sources like that shouldn't be used for things such as bake sales etc, they can be used if the topic itself is notable and if there is no reason to believe that the source is inaccurate or biased. For example, I found an article about a high school play. Not notable. We can all agree on that. An award that received the attention of the Alberta Premier? Notable, but not in and of itself enough to confer notability to the school. I added another article from the same publication discussing some of the history of the school. While yes it is a local paper, there is no reason to believe the source is unreliable in this specific circumstance. Each article needs to be looked at independently.  DiscantX 23:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The paper can generally be reliably, but that doesn't mean everything they print automatically fits with WP:REPUTABLE or counts as a source that works for notability. Like they could print the standings of a local sports league, but we still can't use it for notability per WP:REPUTABLE because sports league standings are not the "analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors." At least we can agree on the story about the play not showing notability though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing specifc and substantial. I was for many years in favor of keeping all high schools--a very much disputed consensus eventually found otherwise, and I don't want to challenge it again. This is exactly the kind of article the discussion was about, and I think having found a consensus on how to handle them, we should follow it. For something like this, if my view fails to be supported in the general argument, I will accept that, and follow the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do realize that the topic area of high schools has been in the past an area of debate on Wikipedia. And where the consensus fell. But I would like to put this out there. To what degree can you honestly expect a high school to receive national recognition in order for it to be notable? Or provincial recognition? The truth is most schools are only known locally, but many of them were fundamental parts of the local history. Are we to delete all of these articles because... why, exactly? There are articles that will never be written. The daycare down the road is unlikely to ever have a Wikipedia article. But one of the first high schools of a municipality? I think that in of itself is notable.  DiscantX 14:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the junction we're at. While at one point in time, secondary schools were presumed notable. When notability shifted more to in depth sourcing (true too for orgs that survived AfD a decade ago but are now deleted), school outcomes shifted to be in line with companies. There are probably hundreds of millions schools worldwide. The vast majority are not notable. Community staples sure, and they can be discussed in the town's article (or in this case Bert Church's legacy) but the schools themselves? Not consequential to a worldwide readership. I'd argue most schools aren't even state/provincially notable. Just my.02 Star Mississippi 16:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This runs a serious risk of over emphasis on urban areas that by their nature have more media coverage than rural. There are schools out there that have absolutely no coverage anywhere other than primary sources, for which I would say they are not deserving of an article. But I feel if you can at least find some secondary sources discussing the history of the school then that history is of importance.
A worldwide readership is a readership that comes from many different populations, and just because one article is not of interest to one person doesn't mean it would not be of interest to someone else. For example, I have very little interest in schools in New York. Yet they have articles such as William E. Grady CTE High School, Sheepshead Bay High School, and George W. Wingate High School (semi-randomly selected from List of high schools in New York City) that have no more notability or even less than Bert Church. There are many of these articles out there. Do we mass delete all of them?  DiscantX 20:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is an over emphasis in Wikipedia on subjects related to urban areas because the nature of them having more media coverage, but it's not our problem. Otherwise what's the alternative? Have some arbitrary standard where any subject having to do with a rural area below a certain population is de-facto notable or something? How would that any better? Like is having to say to someone "The standard of notability is the town having a population of 500 people or less. Whereas, your town's population is 510 people. So your school isn't notable. Sorry, but it's just to urban for our taste." really any better then what we currently have? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying this at all to change your mind, we have differing opinions which is fine -- because they're opinions and neither of us is objectively right. No, we definitely don't mass delete any. While @Adamant1 did absolutely nothing wrong in PRODding, nor did you in challenging, I *personally* feel schools aren't suitable for PROD because they almost always require a conversation. In my personal opinion, conversation helps, whether determine it should be deleted, merged or something else. SuggestBot seems to think I want to fix every school in NYC. This conversation will not help in that respect. If the bot gave me your three I'd probably pass on Wingate/Sheepsheard - defunct and not of personal interest, but take a hatchet to Grady if it's not G12 (haven't looked yet, but State-certified three-year sequence including design and installation of sanitary plumbing and heating systems. doesn't read as independent to me. Are there NYC schools more notable than Alberta? Yes. But they're not notable because they're in NYC. Museums is an area of personal interest and we run into a lot if this there as well. Star Mississippi 01:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my point, which I think you understand (though may or may not agree with), is that these school deletions feel arbitrary in that it is real simple to pick and choose many of these high schools that would fail the same smell test that Bert Church may or may not end up failing. I chose those New York articles because it was a large urban area outside of Canada. It did not take me long to find them. I can find some in Category:Schools in Chicago, Category:Schools in Melbourne. or Category:Schools in Berlin. So actually, maybe I will eat my words. It has nothing to do with urban vs. rural. What really is the selection process for deleting these articles then?  DiscantX 08:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no selection process. In the main people come across articles that do not meet inclusion criteria and nominate them for deletion. You are free to nominate other articles for deletion that you do not feel meet inclusion criteria. There are huge amounts of them all over the place, so other stuff exists is never a good argument for keep. The history of Wikipedia and the poor state of inclusion criteria when it started means that an article existing in no way demonstrates the article meets inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to that, I'm much more selective about what I PROD then I use to be. Especially when it comes to schools. Since it seems like the ability to find references or not for them is extremely finicky. I don't think that means they shouldn't be nominated for deletion though, but doing it through AfD instead of PROD does seem to be more effective at making sure there's a fair chance of the article being kept if it should be. On the "selection process" question, like Johnpacklambert says there isn't really one. For me it's mainly related to what I'm reading about, researching, or interested at the time. Which is mostly random. Somedays it's hospitals, somedays schools, somedays just schools in Africa, somedays only Catholic schools in the Congo. Somedays it's none of those and I'll just work on Commons organizing postcards. There isn't really any rhyme or reason to it. Like two years ago I PRODed and AfDed a lot of Seventh Day Adventist hospitals that weren't notable. Hell if I could tell you exactly why it was that subject. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a Newspapers.com search, but all I could find was coverage from the late 90's about an epidemic of teen suicides in that city. It seems that Canadian schools lack regional coverage that most large American schools have. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing here is not on the level to meet ORG. As scorpions points out there is not substantial sourcing covering this institution, but just incidental mentions in articles about other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily enough sourcing available to meet WP:GNG as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks sources to meet WP:GNG. Claiming that such sourcing is available without presenting any is useless, and a bad habit. Fram (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That editor seems to like to mass state that in secondary school related discussions without showing it is so. Also, the requirements of organizational notability are slightly more stringent than GNG. We do not keep all organizational articles that meet GNG. Although we have never decided which one we apply to secondary educational institutions, in part because there are some editors that assert things like the comment just above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have let my opinion on the subject be known. I think it is a broader issue than Bert Church, and I don't think that the issue can be solved here. There is a problem, in my opinion, with the deletion process of Wikipedia that chooses a very broad definition of notability, and then selectively chooses which criteria to apply it.  DiscantX 10:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Interesting debate but I support keeping this article. — Ret.Prof (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure your aware WP:AUD says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." How exactly do references only from news outlets that are in Airdrie satisfy that? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience (WP:AUD) is not a requirement for non-profit educational institutions per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools which says that a non-profit educational institution "must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both" while for-profit educational institutions must also satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Since Bert Church High School passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline which does not require coverage in non-local media, Bert Church High School is notable.

Cunard (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know why you think that exception exists. It would be weird if Wikipedia become an encyclopedia of information purely on non-profit schools. That's not very fair to for-profit ones. Anyway, I think WP:AUD is important here in practice anyway. We can both look at the coverage of local topics in Wikipedia and see that there isn't a large amount of articles on every local non-profit organization out there. Including educational ones. So whatever the guideline says in no day we just except articles about every non-profit organization that has local news coverage. Which, really is all of them. I could easily find local news coverage of the non-profit homeless shelter where I live, local food bank, non-profit employment agency Etc. etc. but I doubt anyone including you will argue in good faith that there should be articles about any of them in Wikipedia. Actually, maybe you would, but it's clearly not the norm or consensus to just be like "non-profit organization + local news coverage = inherently notable" and call it good there even if you and a few other people want to act like it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As recorded in the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, the community consensus is to allow non-profit educational institutions to pass the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. I did not participate in the community discussions that led to this wording so I do not know why "that exception exists" and will not speculate as to why. A new community consensus would be needed to change this guideline to require that a non-profit educational institution like Bert Church High School pass both the notability guidelines for organizations and the general notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know the guideline exists. I asked why you think it does. "The guideline exists because the guideline exists" is just circular. Even if we ignore the guideline, I'm sure you have an opinion about what the difference between a non-profit school and for-profit one is. In no way am I asking for or want the guideline to be changed because I'm interested in your opinion about it. It's weird you'd treat me like I am. It's a simple question and there should be a simple answer to it. Especially if it keeps coming up like it does. Personally, I'd like it not to. People vote delete in AfDs about non-profit schools because they don't pass WP:NORG all the time and no one says jack about it. So whatever the guideline says I find it hard to believe it's something anyone really cares about or follows. At least outside of a few people who use the caveat in the guideline as form of de-facto notability for local, non-profit schools. Often times it's the same people who also cite WP:IAR whenever it's convenient for them to. Personally, I could care less, but I would like it to stop coming up and it's ridiculous that a bunch of articles on non-profit schools are being kept, while articles on for-profit ones are getting gutted, purely because some special interest local newspaper decided to do a minor piece about their annual bake sale. I highly doubt that's what the guideline has in mind. It's called a "notability" guideline for a reason. I'm sure you would agree with me that the word "notability" doesn't mean "every day, mundane topics that can apply to every school." --Adamant1 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JinSoul (singer)

JinSoul (singer) (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)

deprecated sources, subject not notable enough as a solo artist. Tame (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Czech Republic Twenty20 International cricketers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Gori

Honey Gori (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)

PROD removed saying he has played for the Czech Republic. That may well be the case, but under WP:NCRIC guidelines the Czech Republic do not play at a high enough level for inclusion to be satisfied; by extension WP:GNG is also not satisfied, references are stats pages, a scorecard and mention of him playing in a league in the US which is non-notable. StickyWicket (talk) 11:19, 23 January 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 WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Conine

Jerry Conine (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:NOLYMPICS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maharram Gasimli

Maharram Gasimli (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:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. BEFORE search is turning up only passing mentions and name lists, and no substantial coverage. Mako001 (C)  (T)  08:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Water Skiing Under-14 European Champions

List of Water Skiing Under-14 European Champions (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)

Sports for children is not as notable as sports for adults, given that a victory in children's sport is highly trivial, and the news coverage is miniscule. This is a data dump of winners of a championship which doesn't have its own page. Few of any of these water skiers became notable as adults. Further predecent for deleting data dumps of statistics for youth and other nn sports events are found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Girls' Youth Pan-American Volleyball Cup squads, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 AFF U-18 Youth Championship squads and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpine skiing at the 2012 Arctic Winter Games, just to mention some from 2021. A U17 list also exists but I haven't added it here. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Academy

Eurasian Academy (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)

Made by a likely paid editor, and has been tagged for possible lack of notability for over five years. This, to some extent, continues the Khazar University series of AfDs (for those who have noticed them), and many of the same issues apply. All associated sources, very advert-y, and is probably pulled from some as-yet-unidentified copyright source. Fails WP:GNG, and I can't easily pick it out from other organisations with the same, or a similar name. Mako001 (C)  (T)  07:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskar Papukan Gogoi

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

Being a Member of a low-level wing of BJP doesn't make him notable for Wiki. Arunudoy (talk) 06:43, 23 January 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 Twenty One Pilots discography. ✗plicit 03:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Boy (EP)

Johnny Boy (EP) (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)

None of the sources are about this album except the discogs.com and other primary or inaccessible sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion another round since there are two suggested redirect targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 05:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarmistha Pritam

Sarmistha Pritam (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. All news are about her illness. An illness is not source, specially when the illness is not very rare. - Arunudoy (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have no objection on Keep. I just nominated for a few citations that led WP:GNG issue. I would love if editors expand the subject with more reliable and third party sources. Cheers -Arunudoy (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Connelly

Tristan Connelly (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 fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion. The fight record are merely routine report. Cassiopeia talk 04:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is for when they're an active fighter. NMMA guidelines are used to create pages in hopes that they eventually do meet GNG, if Connelly did meet NMMA we would keep the page but since he doesn't yet there's no reason to. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 08:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aurélien Gazeau

Aurélien Gazeau (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 and WP:NFOOTY. No indication of notability. Sources about him are mostly routine coverage and primary sources about post-match interviews. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:48, 23 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling in Quebec

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

Topic does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Sources are available for histories of individual gambling venues, but notability about gambling in this city seems to be due to WP:SYNTH. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:23, 25 January 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 Christel House International. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christel House Mexico

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

This article has been unreferenced since it's creation in 2009 and all I could find about it was a few trivial name drops in some school directories. Which don't work for notability. There isn't even a Spanish language article for it either. So I highly doubt it's notable. Maybe someone can find a couple of in-depth references for it though. Adamant1 (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that as an ATD. By the looks of it Christel House International can use whatever references it can get. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:17, 25 January 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_January_23&oldid=1069017192"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 23, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.