Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 30

Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh

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

Does not seem to meet

WP:ACADEMIC notability criteria. More than 50% of the references are the person's own work and the rest seem to be typical biography pages on different research institutes' websites describing the person very briefly. In secondary sources, apparently only two trivial mentions (KazInform International News Agency & ABC Nyheter). Article was declined twice for notability issues in 2014. 212.239.136.225 (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC) 23:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Doing a Google News search, there are many, many current news stories about Chevron and Costco. None on Generation Tux. Charliestalnaker (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times gave significant coverage to her research on poverty in Afghanistan in this 2005 article. According to Google Scholar, her 2007 book Human Security Concepts and Implications has been cited 841 times. Here is a review of this book, which describes it as a "pioneering work" that portrays poverty as a human security threat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- Cullen has kindly provided argument to keep, which I agree – and I will now be sure that Cullen's examples appear in entry.
- Nay-sayers, save your breath and Wikipedia text space; prove your point first (e.g., in this case, by demonstrating via search your advocacy for deletion). Please, please learn to take more constructive approaches, not destructive, which suck up other people's time in negative fashion. - Aboudaqn (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Made changes - Aboudaqn (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I agree with Cullen and Aboudaqn (thanks for changes, Aboudaqn) - Raffmeiste (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I agree with Cullen, Aboudaqn and Raffmeiste. There is strong evidente of the academic notability (semantic scholar: 450 citations, here - Vidamag (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice! - added to entry - Aboudaqn (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Tux

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

not a Wikipedia notable company, just one of millions of companies. Also somebody else put a tag at the beginning of the article possibly suggesting that the owner of the company may have created the article. Charliestalnaker (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic more than meets
WP:GNG with multiple in-depth articles in highly respected, independent publications. This article is not great, has some COI and link spam issues, but that means it might be a candidate for semi-protection, not deletion. Niftysquirrel (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes GNG with indepth coverage available in reliable sources. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It had GNG for Zimmer's founding but not the company. Most of the news articles are about Zimmer starting a new venture, not about the company. Since the founding, very little coverage. If it is deemed that this company is Wikipedia notable, then Wikipedia should become a business directory as tens of thousands of companies also have brief intro coverage. Charliestalnaker (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG - looking over articles, there was some coverage when the company first started, probably because George Zimmer was a TV ad star for many years. The article may have been largely written by Generation Tux judging from the warnings slapped on the article. (Wikipedia should not be a corporate stooge). Since then, almost nothing has been written in the press. Sorry, Mr. "I guarantee it" certainly deserves an article but not the barely notable or non-notable Generation Tux. Charliestalnaker (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New York Times article focuses on the business as well as Zimmer himself, with around seven paragraphs on Generation Tux and tuxedo rentals. The Mr Mag and Lifehacker articles focus on Generation Tux. There is easily enough here to pass
talk) 15:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete with specific actions a) not to allow draftifying and b) to salt. Daniel (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shneor Orel

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

Fails

WP:NMUSICIAN, autobiography moved b creating editor(s) to mainspace after being draftified at some point. Moving it back to Draft would be edit warring, so here it is at AfD Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - uses at least one black hat SEO source, which is enough to cast doubt on the notability of the subject. MER-C 11:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Comment The creating editor has expressed a desire on my talk page for this to be returned to draft in order that they may seek to make improvements. MER-C, you are the only person offering a deletion opinion thus far. Would you be willing, instead, to alter that opinion to draftification. If you are I will not stand in the way of that outcome. I have advised them in the last few moments to present their case here. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's better for the author to realise that Wikipedia does not host autobiographies now rather than it getting deleted via G13 in six months time. MER-C 16:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. i didn't make it on purpose (moving from draft etc...) i am new in wikipedia. Is it possible to remove the deletion like this we can move it to draft and leave it there until i do the things right and make this article perfect? thanks in advance

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, ambiguous promotion. Note to deleting admin: This title is unsuitable for Wikipedia and this page has been created repeatedly under this or other names, and if it is deleted, you might also consider
protecting it from creation. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Aishe Ghosh

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

Non notable politician who fails to satisfy any criterion from

WP:NPOL, being a candidate does not confer notability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Being the president of the students union of a university is not an automatic pass of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject always comes to news headlines in India. By comparing the sources this article can be kept. But unsure about its Notability criteria. - Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of any notability; doesn't meet our criteria for politicians.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd perhaps argue for keep. This, this, this, this and many other sources should be enough to help her pass notability. The Economic Times in the long articles does mention, "The 25-year-old Ghosh, president of the JNU Students' Union (JNUSU), is arguably the most recognised student leader in the country at present." ─
^(talk) 11:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Prior to looking at subjective guidelines like
^(talk) 11:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I just tried Google and got these few (which I think are helpful), I'd surely try to find more once I get some more time. ─
^(talk) 11:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:SINGLEEVENT of the 2020 Jawaharlal Nehru University attack. Besides that, I also see COI issues to this page as the article was created by an editor who claimed this image as their work on the commons, and I can not find the image online (which would imply copyright infringement). This implies a close connection between the uploader and the subject.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

There might be COI issues but that doesn't deny the fact that the subject passes GNG.

^(talk) 14:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

The article creator also appears to be a new editor, but per the sources identified by

WP:ATD. Beccaynr (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Comment Also, to respond to the suggestion that this is

Keep per
WP:GNG appears to be supported before she became a candidate, and further supported afterwards. Beccaynr (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:BLP1E appears to clearly not apply, because reliable sources are not covering Ghosh in the context of a single event, and based on the sources, she has not and is not likely to remain a low-profile individual, and the multiple events she has been involved in were substantial and her role has been well-documented. Beccaynr (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Keep as per The Aafī and Beccaynr NHCLS (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an interesting AFD discussion with many of my favorite people participating together. A treat! Agreed with my teacher
WP:BASIC. The event has surely helped her launch herself and there is coverage about her beyond that one event. Hence, a keep from me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, easily passes
WP:GNG.-Danish Daniel 99 (talk) 12:40, 04 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Iveta Gerlová

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

Doesn't meet

GNG. No Fed Cup, Grand Slam or WTA Tour appearances. Her $25,000 tournament wins all come after 2007, so don't meet point 5 of tennis notability criteria. Jevansen (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jevansen (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cited sources insufficient for
WP:GNG. The interview might be considered okay by some but GNG would require multiple sources showing significant coverage, the rest is just routine reporting, which doesn't establish notability or allow us to build a meaningful biography. Also doesn't meet NTENNIS as per nom. Czech source search didn't yield anything better than what is already in the article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AK-50

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

Lacks

self-published) independent (i.e. not interviews) secondary sources. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete prototype gun that fails
WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per nom a prototype gun that fails GNG. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like a promotional blurb; subject fails GNG.TH1980 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not based enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:c802:d4f0:ad0e:a1a3:8fa8:8586 (talk) 07:18, August 3, 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Page appears to have been recently vandalised, but even before then it didn't seem notable in its field. RomanSpa (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage exists but is too niche/unreliable to meet GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to COVID-19 scams. Content can be merged from behind the redirect if there is editorial desire to do so. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical, Inc.

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

Fails

WP:ORG. Almost all of the sources are primary. The sources that aren't are on a single issue and there are only two of them. There seems to be a lack of significant coverage online, and I'm concerned about the coverage of living people (the founder and medical director) that is based almost entirely on primary sources. Bilby (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bilby (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the original page creator, I think it's important to keep an encyclopaedic record for some of the bigger COVID-19 scammers, both for purposes of historical record and public service. I am happy to make any changes suggested to make this article more suitable for inclusion.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is in an okay state imo, and there even are a few more sources to be found here and here. I can see where the concerns about primary sourcing on living people are coming from, but I don't think it's a problem here since searching for the CEO's name actually brings up more non-primary results again, for example here, here and here. An alternative would be to merge into COVID-19 scams and redirect there. --LordPeterII (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the sources your found about the company are still on the single issue. The problem is that there needs to be coverage about the organisation in general rather than on a specific topic. Merging might be a possible solution. - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Since the coverage about the incident is pretty solid though, it could also remain an independent article but being renamed to be about the incident, not the company. Like e.g. "Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical, Inc. Covid-Treatment Scam" (although that specific title sounds a bit clumsy). --LordPeterII (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might work, but it isn't really substantial coverage, either. Perhaps a couple of sentences in COVID-19 scams? The secondary sources so far are two local papers, a brief mention in Money.com, and what looks like a group blog. A search on Google News turns up a bit more, but there's just not a lot of coverage. - Bilby (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I made some minor edits. I don't see any major problems with the article, but it won't ruin my week if this gets deleted. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldest of bold third relists for some more input on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
HighKing⁺⁺ 18:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
talk page 13:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Schmeidler

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

Doesn't appear to meet

WP:ARTIST. PepperBeast (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the mugshot series is enduring. Here it is prominently mentioned in a 2020 El Pais article. Lots of other coverage available, so meets GNG. --- Possibly ☎ 23:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Witzke

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

Failed fringe candidate fails

SPEAK 18:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they seem to be covered widely enough in the media. Mathmo ^Talk 06:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The sources that exist seem to just be routine election profiles and there wasn't anything specially notable that occurred. Curbon7 (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject appears to have 10+ reliable sources mentioning or covering them including NYT, Chicago Tribute, Haaretz, etc though none I found are dedicated articles, but they appear to be above trivial mentions. Per

WP:GNG due to receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I suggest a Wikipedian politician expert should vote as well before a decision is reached. CosmicNotes (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Keep, per person above ⬆️ Sahaib (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

John Barros

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

Local politician who fails

WP:POLITICIAN. No sign of notability beyond local politics. John B123 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just the routine local politics coverage. Fails
WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, when is a politician too local or too routine for inclusion in Wikipedia? Appears to pass
talk) 22:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, passes GNG which is specifically called out in
WP:POLITICIAN, there's press coverage from before his mayoral bid (1, 2), a ton of expected but not overly notable coverage from announcement of his mayoral bid and through all the candidate forums, and then a few more deep dives recently (1, 2). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if the basis for notability changes in the future. Literally by definition, every candidate for mayor everywhere will always be able to show some evidence of campaign coverage in the local media of the city where they're running for mayor, precisely because giving equal time to candidates in local elections is literally local media's job — so if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to give candidates a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would never actually apply to anybody at all anymore. So no,
ten year test for enduring significance anyway (the Christine O'Donnell test). But this article demonstrates neither of those things, so just having campaign coverage in the context of running for mayor isn't enough as it isn't any different from what every other person who ever ran for mayor of a city also has. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The coverage in the article isn't great, but coverage like [1] isn't about a political campaign. I think there's just enough to keep. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark M. Noble

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

Third-party candidate for a state legislature fails

SPEAK 20:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral question to nom Have you done any check to see whether the person meets
WP:GNG? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I see nothing.

SPEAK 03:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Delete: Agree with nominator, search for articles on this candidate produced nothing new that isn't already cited, which is mostly election listings and filings such as with the Ohio Secretary of State. Only 1 student newspaper article from his alma mater covers him significantly. Based on this, it does not rise to the level of meeting

WP:SIGCOV

at this time.

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, and the existence of a smattering of campaign coverage does not hand a candidate a GNG-based exemption from NPOL either — every candidate in every election can always show the existence of some campaign coverage, which would mean NPOL would never apply to anybody at all anymore. A candidate only gets a GNG-based exemption from having to hold an NPOL-passing office if either (a) they had preexisting notability for other reasons that already got them over GNG independently of the candidacy, or (b) their coverage nationalizes to such an extent that they have a credible claim to being a special case of much greater notability than most other candidates in some way that passes the
ten year test for enduring importance — but neither of those things are in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Academic year#United States. Clear consensus below not to keep this article, but unclear whether to delete, merge or redirect. Taking the ATD option of redirecting, with the content available behind the redirect if anyone wishes, of their own volition, to execute a merge. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School holidays in the United States

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reliable sources, many statements likely contain original research. School breaks and holidays vary widely by state and local school districts. In addition, this article is all redundant to Academic year#United States and there is no reason the United States needs a separate article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Redundant article based off of
original research. Curbon7 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. The sources cited are (a) a website of no particular authority and (b) a YouTube video which isn't even linked from this article. A large portion of the article consists of text such as "If the year is a common year starting on Wednesday or leap year starting on Tuesday, Thanksgiving is on November 27 and Black Friday is on November 28", implying that one should look at a January calendar in order to learn the date of Thanksgiving, rather than a November calendar on which Thanksgiving would be the fourth Thursday (and commonly would be listed there). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The content is very close to Wikipedia:Common knowledge territory, and if we want to verify the details or determine how many states a given claim applies to, it's easy to find many sources. The content should either be at Academic year#United States or a standalone article (not necessarily with this title) but certainly not in both places. (It looks like I moved content here from Public holidays in the United States.) The link from Template:Public holidays in the United States/caption should be updated if needed. -- Beland (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop. The parent article is a start, overlong and going nowhere. Personally I have been trying to coordinate a family holiday, with kids in England and Northern Ireland France and possibly US. All need separate articles. Use Academic year to provide links by country. Academic year is different school academic year- and different from school holidays. The information may be easy to find locally, outside the country it really is not obvious. ClemRutter (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more to the topic than just the dates and it's easy to find sources such as Creating a School Policy about Holidays; The History of School and Summer Vacation; The Impact of the Year-Round School Calendar on the Family Vacation; Accelerated Weight Gain Among Children During Summer Versus School Year and Related Racial/Ethnic Disparities: A Systematic Review; &c. Our policy
WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect/merge/delete Since the article merely duplicates Academic_year#United_States, this should have just been a bold merge, no discussion required. While the above links do relate to that article, Summer vacation, and Spring break, they are not the basis for keeping another redundant page. IF that article is improved, an appropriate split could be performed but I see nothing to keep here. Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears to be a notable topic, AfD isn't for cleanup.
talk page 13:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Syed Shah Khusro Hussaini

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

Non-notable educationist, fails

WP:BIO. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the equivalent of a university president and the recipient of two honorary doctorates. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There may be other grounds for keeping this, but I must point out that one of the honorary degrees is from
Phil Bridger (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

delete he is the president of a University founded in 2018 which is clearly not in the spirit of
WP:GNG. --hroest 18:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per hroest. Sometimes, a case for passing
WP:PROF falls apart when examined: "awards" turn out to be not so meritorious, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take Notes

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

Non-notable software. The article is unreferenced. Google News has zero mentions for the software developers. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is non-notable.TH1980 (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elad Hazan

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

Non-notable computer scientist, fails

WP:BIO. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Machine learning is a high-citation subfield of a high-citation field but nevertheless his citation record [2] shows an easy pass of
WP:PROF#C1. Speedy because the nomination is seriously faulty, not even considering the correct notability criterion (PROF not GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Don't need to run Scopus citation metrics on this one. AdaGrad had a legit impact on the machine learning field, and not even just in DNN optimization. JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a
WP:RS qualifying citation: https://www.nj.com/news/erry-2018/12/2bdd28c2e07022/selfdriving-cars-speech-recogn.html While the article is not dedicated to him, it describes the project he oversees, and mentions him as the leader of it. This is more than a trivial mention an helps establish this person as a notable expert. Based on the extensive publication record, this scientist appears to be prominent in his field and leads a high profile project with Google AI. Based on this new citation added, I believe this article should not be deleted at this time, but perhaps improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicNotes (talk • contribs
)

Keep. Passes PROF-C1 based on citations.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 18:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to

Pinoy hip hop#History. Consensus just about exists that the article shouldn't be retained, so taking this option as a valid alternative to deletion. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Dyords Javier

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

I couldn't establish that he meets

WP:GNG. Tagalog article is unreferenced. Claim to fame seems to be association with notable acts and shows. Redirect to Student Canteen as possible ATD? Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Search online in English (USA) did not identify any
WP:RS qualifying source. zero found. However, this person does not sing in English, it would make sense that any coverage would not be in English, hence it is suggested that someone fluent in the language of his songs (Filipino) conduct a search for reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicNotes (talk • contribs) 08:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

@CosmicNotes: Most Philippine sources are in English. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Dyords is the brother of Danny Javier and he is the actor, comedian and singer. User:AnsrieJames9 (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Notability is not inherited. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant news coverage on him. Peter303x (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:BLP1E. Search results in the books return some info regarding that. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Jacks or Better

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

Article fails

WP:NFO; needs two or more reviews in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything other than the sole review, so I concur with this not passing NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:GNG. Except the single review from Variety, I found no other reliable independent sources that show significant coverage on the film. Given the lack of coverage, it does not appear to be notable enough to have a stand-alone article. --Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete it seems weird that Variety is the only source for this but I really couldn't find any others. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pelita Nasi Kandar

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

Delete. This article is little more than a list of restaurants, a form of advertising, and contains no citations to back up any of the information, including whether it is notable. Ira Leviton (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with
HighKing⁺⁺ 13:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

HighKing⁺⁺ 10:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

HighKing⁺⁺ 10:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Keep. Credible assertion of notability. Someone was putting the references into the external links section; I've moved them inline, added a third (fourth) (fifth). I ~~do think we need to remove~~ have removed the listing of all outlets as promotional, but this seems to be a notable-enough restaurant chain. —valereee (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi
  HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Hey, @
  HighKing! I think the Malay Mail piece certainly is sigcov. Not sure what you mean by 'based on an interview' -- the simple fact spokespersons are quoted doesn't make the piece a simple interview? Interview sigcov fails are typically simple transcripts of interviews, Q&As. The others are shorter, but the fact the business is being covered in multiple outlets for me would push it over the hump. All of these media have articles. Do we suspect this is paid coverage? —valereee (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi
HighKing++ 15:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
lol wow, so kind. :D —valereee (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, wasn't trying to be a smartarse but I can see what I wrote unintentionally looks unkind.
HighKing⁺⁺ 12:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This nomination was never transcluded to the daily log page until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think this chain just scrapes over the line into notability, though if the consensus is otherwise you won't find me arguing too much. What makes me think the chain is just about notable is (a) its relative size: it's just about big enough to be known reasonably well in its home market, and (b) its Guinness Book entry. There are a few references in independent sources to this restaurant chain. It's not a global company, but it's a player in Malaysia. RomanSpa (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi
  HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the 7 sources used on the page seem to carry enough weight and are published in major newspapers/magazines (even if some include quotes from spokespeople). They aren't republished press releases, since they were written by journalist for edited publications. A quick Google search also turned up these [3], [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuySomeApples (talk • contribs)

The criticism of the references were that they failed NCORP, specifically ORGIND. If you think all seven meet the criteria for establishing notability, can you explain which parts of those references contain "Independent Content"? You'll also need to expand on what you mean by "carry enough weight" as there's nothing in the guidelines that matches that criteria. You say the references aren't "republished" press releases - nobody said they were. What was said is that the articles *relied* entirely on interviews/announcements/quotations - to such an extent that there is no "Independent Content" in any of those articles. Finally (and ironically given what I've just said), both of the references you link to above also *rely entirely* on a company announcement with no "Independent Content". The FMT reference is based on an announcement - here's another from The Star that is word-for-word identical so I think you'll agree it cannot be "Independent Content". Same with the hmetro.com reference, all of the fact are attributed to the company/CEO via the announcement, no "Independent Content".

HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Keep. The article has been improved significantly since nomination by
talk) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey

HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

PBOC Motorsports Club

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

Organization is not notable per

WP:ORG. Last AfD was in January 2008 and resulted in a delete !vote, but the page was restored three months later—with no substantive content changes at the time. There is no SIGCOV in Florida newspapers. In 13 years, our standards have tightened enough that this organization is not fit for inclusion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possibly promotional article. Unable to find evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Does not appear to be being maintained by anybody knowledgeable in the subject area so even if the information was accurate it may well be outdated; although given the lack of accessible sources it's impossible to tell. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Acharya shri nana lal ji maharaj sa (Nana)

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

References to till date are not reliable and independent of the subject. Fails

WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the cited sources seem to meet the standards of GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems like a promotional article -- DaxServer (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet GNG and seems like promotional content. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriy Andriyovych Sydorov

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

BLP with no actual references. Some external links but mostly broken and the one that works doesnt establish notability. Its clear there has been some edit warring. Is he notable? Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This would be an A7 speedy but for the assertion that he won an award - a businessman who has done businessmanny things. The award doesn't look notable, Google gives me zero - fails
WP:BASIC. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The same article was deleted in the Ukrainian wiki. The discussion mentions that the award is not notable: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%82%D1%96-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F/29_%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8F_2019#%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%AE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Dr.KBAHT (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Liofer Pinatacan

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

Actor notable only for having appeared in Pinoy Big Brother: Connect, a single season of Pinoy Big Brother. Suggest redirect to article about the show. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Connect and salt to prevent recreation. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the show, as per above. No notability outside show. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:1E. SBKSPP (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Connect per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:NACTOR. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Shinji and Good Friends

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

Possible ATDs are merge/redirect to

CAT:NN for 12 years. I couldn't establish it meets notability. However, I only read English, so may have missed something. Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Redirect to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion video games#PC and console games -This group of minor games is actually already covered on that article, and basically has all of the information on them included already. I can't find any real coverage in reliable sources, and the article on these games in the Japanese Wikipedia is also completely unsourced, so I can't see any justification for keeping is as a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma, unless significant RS coverage can be found and stand-alone notability can be established (if these even exist, they are presumably Japanese print sources).--Alexandra^IDV 09:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

Sword of the Dark Ones

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

Unref article which has been in

WP:N, but am aware I may be missing something not in English. Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep did a search for sources and found reviews from Mania, Manga Life, and Manga News, which are considered reliable by WikiProject Anime and manga. Link20XX (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Link's sources, there is also some coverage in Japanese sources:

Inc, Aetas. "『ラグナロク』の安井健太郎，7年ぶりの新刊！「放課後ライトノベル」第129回は謎と陰謀渦巻く『アークIX』で命がけの戦いを". www.4gamer.net (in Japanese). Retrieved 2021-07-30. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help) - (SIGCOV in box at bottom of article)
斎藤美奈子 (2001-11-09). 男女という制度 (in Japanese). 岩波書店.
ISBN 978-4-00-026707-6
.

Jumpytoo Talk 23:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage has been found. Dream Focus 23:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough available sources for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Siddhaguru

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

Non notable person who has received largely sponsored coverage. There is no significant coverage in independent sources for an article to be considered. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, in India (Andhra Pradesh and Telegana) he is in the public censure after what he said about Hanuman in the Ramayana. That caused a lot of stir. He appears to be a devotee of Shirdi Sai Baba. I don't speak to whether he is a guru or not. However, agree with the nom, this fellow is non-notable and there are not sufficient reliable sources about him. Delete! --Whiteguru (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Gello Marquez

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

Fails

WP:NACTOR. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gello is the actor, singer, vlogger and model. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

The result was procedural keep per Andrew. No valid reason was provided for deletion. Daniel (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to
talk) 07:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with NewManila2000, while they are noteworthy enough to be mentioned on either page, he does not have enough popularity to warrant a standalone page. N7o2h3 (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NACTOR per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:NACTOR. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Hypnotherapy in the United Kingdom

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

This article barely contains any references, so it either requires significant paring and overhaul, or simple deletion. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as AfD is not the place to take articles needing cleanup etc.
talk page 13:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry G. Chmielewski

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

The subject seems to have written a lot of works, but I couldn't find any coverage about him. The citation rate could be the reason to keep the article, but all of the works with high rates are co-authored. For now he fails

WP:PROF. Less Unless (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead and Casliber: Is there an exception of some sort related to botanists? —Eewilson (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson: the only issue concerning botanists is sometimes that they have authored a lot of names in only a few publications (e.g. a monograph) so can be considered notable on this account. However, a search of IPNI for "Chmiel." (note that "Chmiel" without the "." is a different person) yields only 11 names, all at an infraspecific rank, so he's not notable on this account. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical, then. I'll save the text of the article off in case he gets notable, but I have no objection to deletion. —Eewilson (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he had done a monograph on a genus tat would make him notable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of
WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete. No pass of
WP:Prof, see MA profile and given his age (Phd almost 40 years ago) I doubt this is a case of TOOSOON. I am not a botanist but it seems he mainly described subspecies. --hroest 18:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Someone can contribute in a perfectly solid way without passing
WP:PROF (which, at least in part, is not about how much they have written but in how much has been written by others about them). If there are a bunch of biographical sources (or awards, etc, as shown in WP:PROF), speak up, but based on what's in the article and what I could find with a little searching, there don't appear to be. Question: if we delete the article should we unlinkify his name at List of botanists by author abbreviation (C), Symphyotrichum lanceolatum (two places where the abbreviation Chmiel. is linked), and any other such mentions (although those two were the only ones I noticed in "what links here"). It seems odd to have a redlink which invites re-creating an article which, unless people have new sources or something changes, wouldn't be kept. Kingdon (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Probably Delete. (Article creator here.) I did the Google Scholar and JSTOR searches. Seems he's done a bit with chromosome counts that I hadn't seen. As has been said, I don't see major works, but a few important papers with John C. Semple. He is not an author of FNA, has not authored a monograph on a genus, etc. But I wonder if keeping the article and elaborating (I did it in a bit of a rush to — yes — get it started and get rid of the red link) on the work he has done would flesh out the notability question. @Kingdon: makes a good point. He is redlinked in a few places, but doesn't have to be. Wikipedia doesn't need an article on Jerry G. Chmielewski, and I'm not married to it one way or the other, but anyone who wishes to, have a quick look again. I'm too tired and my eyes can't focus/brain can't think to write more on him at this time or to again try to find more about him besides on ResearchGate, but maybe tomorrow. —Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn and no delete votes remain. Closing this as an uninvolved editor.

(non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Bombay to Goa (2007 film)

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

~~Non notable film, appears to fail~~

~~WP:BEFORE~~

~~that could help support notability.~~

~~No critic reviews found. Zero critic reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. Found a few blog reviews, but those don't count toward notability.~~

PROD was removed with statement "Please...", with the addition of box office results as the added citation, which, again, just proves the film was released, not that it is notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC) WITHDRAWN due to newly added citations. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldd23, I don't get the rush to delete an article when you are fully aware I'll do my best to improve it, as I always do with the many unjustified nominations you guys love submitting for deletion here. Most of what you said is, with all due respect, incorrect. Zero reviews? It appears to be untrue. Consider withdrawing the nomination as I'm working on it and there are plenty of sources, so your WP:BEFORE was probably not made correctly. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note, Rotten Tomatoes is an American review-aggregation website. The English Wikipedia is not American, and its standards of notability should not depend on or be determined upon a subject's visibility in American media. Indian subjects are no less notable by virture of their coverage in the Indian press. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there are RELIABLE CRITIC reviews, then please add them. According to

WP:NFILM, then other editors will support keeping this article. But, until then, it appears to fail, and Wikipedia is not a place for articles that FAIL notability requirements. If the article wasn't ready for publication then it should be in DRAFT until it passes. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

In addition, your comment "I don't get the rush to delete an article" is incorrect. The article was created in 2007 and it has had 14 years to have citations added to pass

WP:NFILM. If 14 years is rushing to delete, then how many years must we wait to question an article's notability? DonaldD23 talk to me 15:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

My comment refers to the period of time between my removal of the PROD template and your submission of this AFD, which is just a few minutes. So far everytime I objected to the deletion of an article I took the time to improve the article in question (unless the nomination is totally uncalled for to begin with or someone else does the job) right away, and this case was no exception, as you see. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - several reviews added, production details as well, notability established. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the film reviews added by Shshshsh. Meets
WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: now meets
WP:NFILM -- DaxServer (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn DonaldD23 talk to me 22:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NACD -- DaxServer (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent de Paul Society (Trinity College Dublin)

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

Possible

WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Incidentally, there's no way that it has 7,500 members. That would be more than half the university's undergraduates. More likely, it has 75. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Trinity_College_Dublin#Societies where SVDP, a minor society, is already mentioned. Maybe they mean 7,500 members of SVAP in Ireland, certainly not TCD members. ww2censor (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dozens of colleges and universities have clubs/societies which fundraise for the
WP:CLUB is not met (this "branch" of the SVDP is not a "nationally well-known local organisation"; it is just a "branch" of an international org/charity). I'm not sure what a redirect gives us. Mine if a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Robert Oldham

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

No evidence of any significant coverage in reliable sources found during my search. Books appear to be self-published (publisher is Raven who describe their business model as having included self publishing). I don't have the kind of thing against self-published authors that some on here seem to (it actually seems like a cool thing to do to me) but there's no notability for this guy that I can see, especially not enough to reach

WP:NAUTHOR. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply existing as a writer is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself — the notability test is not "his books exist", but "his books have been the subject of external coverage and analysis, such as book reviews or news articles about him winning a noteworthy literary award". It is certainly possible for self-published writers to get enough
reliable source coverage to establish their notability — Terry Fallis did it with The Best Laid Plans — but that hasn't been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

Raine Davison

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

Non-notable actress per

DarkGlow • 10:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

talk page 09:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Delete - absolutely no news on her in Google news and few first pages of Google doesn't show any significant news. Peter303x (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawing nomination

Palayathu Vayal Govt. UP School

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

Appears to be a non-notable primary school.

talk page 09:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

4030 Call System

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

It does not have the necessary reputation and is in the form of advertising. Persia ☘ 08:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

talk) 08:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – assessing notability is always difficult when you're dealing with de facto state-controlled media, but I think there's enough here to meet the
Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. It is advertising. PARSA (TALK)
Keep, per the assessment by
Extraordinary Writ. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It has the necessary notability; especially with the increase of Corona issues and content on a daily basis, the reputation of this system is also increasing (although it is still famous). There are also similar articles such as
Extraordinary Writ mentioned a true point that: "that's clearly a major part of Iran's COVID-19 response". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Enough references to meet GNG Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Javier Serafini

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

Prod deleted by @

WP:GNG; the best source is a quick interview with Serafini published on what looks to be a fan blog. The rest are game previews/reports, passing mentions and databases. A Google search doesn't yield much either. JTtheOG (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

talk) 08:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

talk) 08:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

talk) 08:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply