Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 17

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 2022 California's 17th State Assembly district special election. Per normal practice and per the lack of sourcing identified that indicate coverage separate from the election of independent from his alma mater. Should Mahmood win, an article can be considered at that time. Star Mississippi 15:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Mahmood

Bilal Mahmood (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)

Seeking a redirect to

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If he wins the assembly race, then he will be notable. Unelected candidates to state legislatures are never notable for that, and the other coverage is not independent enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -As above - he is only a candidate at this stage, and they aren't inheritently notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -First the article was stripped down in a series of edits which takes significant work to even understand, and then the same editor tries to delete the stripped article days later with an argument that is not in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

More specifically,

WP:BIO

explicitly states that notability is satisfied by "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." and that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" which this article easily does with more than the minimum of 2 sources. This source assessment table of 8 sources (none of which have been mentioned) demonstrates:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/Spotlight-on-S-F-Assembly-race-Bilal-Mahmood-16789294.php	SF Chronicle is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	SF Chronicle is well established news outlet	article is entirely about Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
https://www.ebar.com/news/news//311180	The Bay Area Reporter is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	The Bay Area Reporter is America's longest continuously-published and highest circulation LGBTQ newspaper. However, it's unclear if they have a track record of fact checking and accuracy. More importantly, this is an opinion piece and thus we cannot rely on the paper's reputation	article is entirely about Bilal Mahmood	✘ No
https://stanforddaily.com/2021/11/07/bilal-mahmood-09-running-for-ad17-to-recover-beacon-of-hope/	The Stanford Daily is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	The Stanford Daily is the independent, student-run newspaper of Stanford University. Student media is explicitly considered reliable with the Harvard Crimson given as an example	article is entirely about Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
https://missionlocal.org/2022/01/assembly-candidate-bilal-mahmood-is-often-a-no-show-when-it-comes-to-voting/	Mission Local is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	Mission Local is a fiscally sponsored project of San Francisco Public Press and was originally a project of UC Berkeley’s Journalism School	article is entirely about Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
https://sfstandard.com/elections/bilal-mahmood-entrepreneur-and-scientist-on-why-hes-running/	San Francisco Standard is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	San Francisco Standard is an independent, for-profit company, with initial funding provided by Michael Moritz, a partner at Sequoia Capital	article is entirely about Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
https://www.kqed.org/news/11890455/david-chius-seat-in-california-assembly-already-has-candidates-lining-up-for-special-election	KQED is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	KQED is well established news outlet	article significantly covers Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
http://www.sfexaminer.com/news/the-hottest-political-race-of-sfs-election-season/	SF Examiner is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	SF Examiner is well established news outlet	article significantly covers Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/07/clearbrain-launch/	TechCrunch is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	TechCrunch is well established news outlet	Bilal Mahmood is discussed and quoted extensively in the article. The article is primarily about ClearBrain and not Bilal Mahmood. However, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material"	✔ Yes
https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/16/clearbrain-launches-analytics-tools-focused-connecting-cause-and-effect/	TechCrunch is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	TechCrunch is well established news outlet	Bilal Mahmood is discussed and quoted extensively in the article. The article is primarily about ClearBrain and not Bilal Mahmood. However, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material"	✔ Yes
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/That-rejected-495-unit-complex-in-San-Francisco-16596721.php	SF Chronicle is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	SF Chronicle is well established news outlet	only 3 of 33 paragraphs mention Bilal Mahmood	✘ No
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/aocs-former-chief-of-staff-weighs-in-on-san-francisco-politics/	SF Examiner is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	SF Examiner is well established news outlet	Bilal Mahmood is mentioned only twice	✘ No
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/Who-will-replace-Assemblymember-David-Chiu-City-16496647.php	SF Chronicle is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	SF Chronicle is well established news outlet	article significantly covers Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
https://www.medgadget.com/2013/04/qa-with-bilal-mahmood-of-science-exchange.html	MedGadget is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	MadGadget is well established medical tech news outlet	article significantly covers Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The idea that no unelected candidate can be notable is a clearly incorrect interpretation of

notable company, crafted a California Green New Deal with the notable author of the original notable Green New Deal, etc. all of which is significantly covered by articles which are independent and reliable, per the source assessment table --Jjersin (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• @
  WP:NOTNEWS to me. — BriefEdits (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete As a candidate seeking election, he does not currently meet
  WP:NPOL. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The guidelines state "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." The general notability guideline states "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Looking at the source assessment table, this page clearly meets that criteria given that there are nine such stories. The guidelines give us no reason to do so, but let's ignore all coverage relating to the election given the responses thus far. If we consider solely his role as CEO of ClearBrain, there are multiple stories in TechCrunch where almost every paragraph features Mr. Mahmood, thus meeting the notability guideline of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources for the individual's role as a notable business leader. Most of the other analyses here are far too shallow giving no consideration of or investigation into the individual's role as a CEO who founded and sold a startup to a billion dollar company. 50.236.12.34 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:TECHCRUNCH). — BriefEdits (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Responses continue to ignore sources and reasons for notability. For example, the creation of a Green New Deal for California with the original author of The Green New Deal has been dismissed as an endorsement, when in reality it's a significant and public legislative proposal [1]. The company Bilal Mahmood founded has been dismissed without attempting to determine it's notability or the notability of his role [2][3], [4], [5], [6]. Mahmood's notable philanthropic activities, unrelated to his candidacy, have been given no weight [7]. Bilal Mahmood's notable political activities separate from his candidacy have not been considered [8].

In summary, the arguments for deletion are as simplistic as can be, essentially claiming that it is not possible for anyone to be a political candidate and also notable, so this article must be deleted for the sole reason that the subject is a political candidate. This reasoning is fatuous at best, as there are clear counterexamples Christine O'Donnell which are highly notable justify long articles for over a decade. The arguments fail to discuss other reasons for notability on almost any level, completely disregarding analysis of sources [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] which either contradict their arguments, or prove notability separate from the subject's candidacy. Deletion without addressing the arguments for notability themselves, or the sources that prove it, is wrong. --Jjersin (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jjersin:1. When I was talking about the Green New Deal endorsement, I was referring to the article used as an inline citation in the article. Even then, I'm not seeing any coverage pertaining to that, other than the opinion piece that he wrote for the SF Examiner that you linked.

• The point is that it's not just an endorsement as you had claimed, it's also a policy package, co-created with a notable person, that did get mentioned in the press. --Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. The Chinatown article literally just says that he noticed the story on Twitter. It's kind of a stretch to make it about his "philanthropy".

• Wrong. It sounds like you didn't read it. That same article also talks about his background as the son of immigrants, his views of the challenges faced by immigrants, and the impact of crime on small business. --Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. I am simply not seeing the notability of him founding a company that happened to be acquired—especially when the principal source is TechCrunch (which is iffy), the secondary source is more about the acquisition, and Y-Combinator coverage is extremely routine for TechCrunch.

• Again, you're saying TechCrunch is iffy, though I provided 2 other sources, and you're not describing why the 3 TechCrunch sources are inadequate, even though guidelines state they should be handled case by case. --Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4. Most if not all political coverage is related to him being a candidate in the CA State Assembly Race (hence the redirect request). No news outlet is going to ask to interview him or quote him if he wasn't involved in the race. Being mentioned in the news for a comment or interviewed does not make him notable enough for his own article when most of his notability is derived from his candidacy. If you want to make the Christine O'Donnell comparison, then show me a level of national or international coverage that Mahmood has received that matches O'Donnell's. — BriefEdits (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's you're just reiterating your earlier point and injecting your opinion about whether news outlets are interested in him for reasons other than his candidacy, again, in the face of several sources to the contrary and the fact that news outlets have been interviewing him since 2013 for other reasons [19]. I'm not making a Christine O'Donnell comparison, her wikipedia article is massive, and that's a straw man of my argument. I'm making a very clear counterpoint to your argument that a political candidate can never be notable.--Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In summary, we have a number of sources which are independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage across a number of topics - the subject's company, gates scholarship, philanthropy, as well as his candidacy. On the other side we have an argument that TechCrunch is iffy, a failure to read sources, and an argument that boils down to the idea that articles should be automatically deleted if the subject runs for political office. --Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't edit Wikipedia much, but I was surprised to see someone who I consider to be famous in the tech community to getting their page deleted. In line with all the policies cited, it seems there are several sources which are reliable and independent across multiple topics and times.Ericatj (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's clear from the table above that there's more than a trivial amount of coverage about him. I'm obviously biased as another YC founder, but there's an ok amount of references and there's no clear COI. Personally, I know there's a growing community of support for his candidacy, especially in the tech sector, so I don't se any reason this has to go. AnandChowdhary (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 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.

Will Healy (composer)

Will Healy (composer) (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)

Nothing notable whatsoever. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiIAmLarryTomJoe (talk • contribs) 16:13, January 15, 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Procedurally completing nomination on behalf of the above user, who has been blocked as a sock per
  WP:CSD#G5 does not apply. --Finngall ^talk 23:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This Afc was created by Blocked Editor HiIAmLarryTomJoe, this AfC needs to be closed ASAP! Chip3004 (talk) 03:46, 18 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!} 22:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Joseph

Lynn Joseph (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 a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Her books have been the subject of six Kirkus reviews, two of them starred. Easily passes
  WP:NAUTHOR#3 as the creator of a significant and well-known body of work. pburka (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:NAUTHOR#3 - I found nine Kirkus reviews and five from Publishers Weekly [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Beccaynr (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:HEY. Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment per
  WP:HEY, reviews from Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist and the School Library Journal, a link to a biography published by Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors (2014), and information about various awards have been added to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not really a HEY, though. These sources can all easily be found. They should have been found by the nom in their BEFORE. pburka (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am always in the mood of shouting HEY! happily whenever someone actually adds the sources to the article, instead of just stating them in the discussion (which I too have been guilty of on occasion). Moreover, the nominator's statement, while given in good faith, has been demonstrated to be patently untrue, and the discussion now meets
  WP:SKCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Seems to be a lot of reviews of her work, indicating notability *though* a lot of them are in the one title, Kirkus Reviews, which I'm not sure is a good example of RS if its publishing a high volume of reviews rather than being selective. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since when do we nominate authors with this coverage and publication pedigree for deletion? Cannot make sense using
  WP:NAUTHOR standards. She is being mentioned alongside of her publications in academic journals since 1999. We need more articles about her books, actually. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 08:06, 19 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.

Kourosh Torbat Zadeh

Kourosh Torbat Zadeh (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)

Recreated several times today. The first attempt was speedy deleted for multiple reasons but the second one was given a chance by being sent to draft (Draft:Kourosh Torbat Zadeh), indicating that the topic has potential merit. A third identical copy has now been posted again in mainspace, which is usually an attempt to game the system.

None of the sources show significant coverage. This one looks to be the best but is actually written by Torbat Zadeh himself and is a press release, so is not

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only coverage I found was a self-published press release. If, for some reason, Zadeh is found to be notable, the article quality demands nuking from orbit and a rewrite. Kleuske (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like a promotional page for a nobody. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think it is harsh to call any person a "nobody" but I don't think this individual meets Wikipedia's standards for notability for actors,
  WP:NACTOR. I also have a prejudice against new editors writing articles promoting themselves and their careers. I see dozen of these articles in Draft space every day but compared to those half-hearted efforts, it seems like this editor has been extremely persistent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as not coming anywhere close to
  biography of a living person
  .
  • • It was sent to draft not because of any possible
      credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Comment to User:Liz - I think that Wikipedia has a policy of prejudice against new editors writing promotional articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I also have a prejudice against editors who create two copies of an article, in draft space and in article space, especially if they also have a
  conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Lacks significant coverage, and a whiff of promotion around the whole thing. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition to the obvious lack of notability and CV styling, it is also a COPYVIO from his IMDb profile at www.imdb.com/name/nm13121927/, such as this exact match: "...was born on June 25, 1991 in the city of Mashhad, Iran مشهد ایران . He is an employee of MTN Irancell and works in the field of content production in this large company and is one of the well-known and popular forces of this company. He is fluent in German and also works in the field of acting and singing. He is also a TV presenter..."--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:44, 18 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.

List of CM Punk Matches in AEW

List of CM Punk Matches in AEW (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 such other page exists and this isnt even notable in the first place Muur (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Muur (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article has no source. And Punk in his career has wrestled in many places, ROH, TNA, WWE, why should his AEW matches be exclusively listed? And there are many wrestlers in WWE and AEW, we don't need to go listing evry single matches they had for a particular promotion, if that was the case there have been far more important wrestlers than Punk (Hogan, Flair, Hart, Austin) who deserves that honor. This is pure CM Punk WP:Fancruft. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 22:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as appropriate to CM Punk. Agree that this does not need to be a standalone list. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

doesnt even deserve to be a redirect.Muur (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as
  WP:FANCRUFT, no other lists exist of this sort of nature that I could find. Ajf773 (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, far too much detail.
  McPhail (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, WP FANCRUFT. Not needed a redirect. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it appears to be out of wiki scope. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Pure
  WP:FANCRUFT and per above, definitely out of WP scope. Spf121188 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Seriously, who thought this was a good idea? oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears to be
  SNOWing. Spf121188 (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, Pure
  WP:SNOW. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Textbook fandom-related stuff.
  Mann Mann (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Looks like a fan-made article rather than an encyclopedic article.Juggyevil (talk) 14:38, 19 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.

International Conference on Game Theory at Stony Brook

International Conference on Game Theory at Stony Brook (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)

Subtopic of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Time to close the browser tabs where I was looking into this... It's a conference. Yep, sure held some meetings, that they did. I was unable to find enough about the history of it to suggest that writing that history would be interesting or worthwhile. Does it add to the meaning that a paper gives a reader if the reader sees that the research was presented at the ICGTSB? Not that I can tell. It can be hard to document academic activities like conferences, legitimate-but-niche journals, etc. But the rarity of documentation doesn't mean we should lower our standards; it just means that we often can't write about those things. Too bad, in a way, but so it goes. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 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 03:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Kennedy College

John Kennedy College (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 is extremely promotional and only referenced primary sources. Unfortunately when I looked for better ones all I could find was a 95 page book called "John Kennedy College : 30 years of purple magic : the Eagles 95," which was written by the school. So I'm nominating this for deletion since secondary schools are not inherently notable. That said, the rather ambiguous name probably doesn't help things so maybe someone can references that I couldn't. If anything does turn up at least make sure it's for the right place before posting it in the AfD. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, minus the spam. It is a secondary school and we normally regard secondary schools as notable. This article is frequently prone to promotional additions and I see a big chunk of them have slipped in since I last looked. In the past the puffery has been quite laughably over the top. This seems more run of the mill but it is still unreferenced promotion. I'll clear that stuff out and then we can get a better view of what remains. Also, I think this did have some independent references in the past. I'll try to see what happened to those. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RfC a few years ago that determined secondary schools aren't inherently notable anymore and there's been plenty of AfDs for secondary school since then that resulted in delete. Per the RfC "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG." So in no are they normally regarded as notable. They still have to pass

WP:NORG like every other type of organization. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough. I looked at some old versions and it looks like I was wrong about there being independent refs in the past. There may be some hits in Google News to save it but I don't speak French. I'll switch to neutral for now. I've removed the puffery so at least that's something. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At least the puffery is dealt with now if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No RS here to substantiate this as notable. As noted, schools aren't inheritently notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no independent sources. A few years ago we decided to go from allowing any article on a top level secondary school that we could be sure really existed to allowing only articles that could be sourced to reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that RfC was 5 years ago. I had no idea it had been so long. Well in part because some people have claimed it includes a "do not proactively try to implement this" clause, so it has really had very little effect on either the level of secondary school articles we have, or the adequacy of the sourcing that they have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I always refer to it as being a few years ago because that's when it seems like people started to follow it. There was a good three years there after the RfC where it was mostly being ignored though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We may end up saying about the same thing about the RfC on Olympians not being default notable unless they won a medal. At least I am surprised we have not seen more deletion nominations on Olympians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -
  WP:NORG appears to be the threshold, and from the sources presented we're not there. Chumpih ^t 20:12, 20 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!} 22:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Kunets

Andrey Kunets (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination; fails
  WP:MUSICBIO Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This doesn't pass
  WP:MUSICBIO. Even there is no citations or references to verify it's notability. GaffarSofi96 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:MUSICBIO. Insufficient and trivial coverage, there is literally just one citation, which does prove its notability.Juggyevil (talk) 14:46, 19 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.

Alternative payments

Alternative payments (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)

Has been unsourced for 10 years. Appears to be all original research on whatever editors think counts as an alternative to credit cards (with no justifiable claim as to why credit cards are the gold standard everything needs to be alternative to in the first place...why not cash?). ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced and not encyclopedic. All of the stuff the article talks about is real stuff, but there's no sense that there's an article there about the general concept of alternative payments itself. I could imagine such an article existing, but I don't think there's any NEED for it to exist that would warrant keeping this as a starting point. PianoDan (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No SIGCOV-quality references and the core definition is unsourced and isn't clearly natural: by defining alternative payments to be non-credit cards, the definition explicitly excludes cash. It's easy to find sources that define the term differently, e.g. for transactions that don't have a determinate monetary value. The content isn't of sufficient quality to look for an ATD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep a
  WP:SIGCOV. Duckmather (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The lead is an improvement on the version before it was submitted, in that the characterisation in the lead now better matches a source, but (i) you achieved this by changing the definition used in the article from one that excludes cash to one that includes it, (ii) the source actually calls them by the full name "alternative payment methods", not "alternative payments", so the source does not validate that actual term used in the article, and (iii) the source establishes that one body uses the term in this way but does not establish that the term is generally used in this way. I've no doubt that the article is talking about a meaningful phenomenon, rather I'm concerned that the article is setting out what is, for our purposes, a neologism,and is developed in an unencyclopediac way. The improvement you made does not go nearly far enough to change my opinion on this material. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Charles Stewert puts it much better than I can, but this is the gist of my nomination. While Alternative music is a specific genre, and Alternative fuel refers to a class of non-conventual fuel sources, the content (and motivation?) for Alternative payments is like saying we need to have encyclopedia articles for anything out of whatever someone considers the norm ("alternative lawn care solutions" or "alternative shampoos" --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:19, 22 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!} 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Mobile Payment Service

Secure Mobile Payment Service (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)

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

No meaningful content or sources; defunct home site. ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete SEMOPS was a EU-funded project [25], but all google hits are from 2010s and it looks like nothing good came of it. Loew Galitz (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't look that notable yet. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 15:28, 21 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. Consensus is that he does indeed meet NMUSIC Star Mississippi 15:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aksel Kankaanranta

Aksel Kankaanranta (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)

Most notable for being selected to take part in Eurovision, however that appearance never materialized due to the cancellation of the contest. Subject fails to satisfy

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject is notable per point 9 of WP:NMUSIC ”Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.” per second place in The Voice a high rated show and win in ESC national selection. And point 12, ”Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.”. Also per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Winning or placing top 3 in The Voice (American TV series) (or even UK, Germany or other, may indeed meet MUSICBIO No. 9) but this was The Voice of Finland and is far from a notable national competition. The Finns did not even see fit to creating an article for him. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an article about him on Finnish Wikipedia [26]. So in fact they do see it fit. BabbaQ (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for the reason given of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That is not how Eurovision works. In order to represent Finland, you win the Uuden Musiikin Kilpailu, which means something in itself. It's not merely a selection. Also, most relevant media would be in Finnish. Example, another one. /Julle (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the nomination was in good faith, it failed to grasp the sigcov that is shown in other Wikipedias; statements like "the Finns did not even see fit to creating an article for him" is also untrue. In addition to Kankaanranta's own music competition merits, he was a featuring artist on a charted #1 single in Finland [27] Geschichte (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination; Eurovision participation did not materialise and attempt to win UMK again were unsuccessful. In addition I feel calling on
  WP:REALITYSINGER into effect, which I don't believe have been satisfied with this article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Spencer Howe

Spencer Howe (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 significant coverage to meet the

• Delete per nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Howe has been selected for the 2022 Four Continents, so he has a possibility to meet criteria #2 at
  WP:NSKATE. Arguably, he also meets #4 (competing at a senior Grand Prix event) because he competed at the 2020 Skate America. Even though it was majorly affected by COVID, the ISU still considers it a GP. So, I think there's no point in deleting this article right away, although it may have been a mistake to publish it before Howe inarguably met the criteria. Hergilei (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

or here) 23:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NSPORTS Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Changed because of lack of reliable, secondary sources per
  WP:TOOSOON per both Hergilei and Insertcleverphrasehere's comments, so draft space seems appropriate until the next competitions have occurred. Chumpih ^t 20:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Keep given the update via User:Hergilei seems OK to keep now. Chumpih ^t 18:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Update Howe has won silver at the 2022 Four Continents Figure Skating Championships. He now clearly meets the criteria for inclusion. Hergilei (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough here for now to satisfy
  WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • He more than fulfills #2 at
    WP:NSPORTS, figure skating section: Have competed in the free skate at the following ISU Championships: World Junior Figure Skating Championships, European Figure Skating Championships, Four Continents Figure Skating Championships". It would be highly unusual to delete a medalist at one of these events. I can't think of any medalist who's been deemed not notable enough. Hergilei (talk) 15:20, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhish Kutty

Nidhish Kutty (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)

Worked in only 3 movies, not significant coverages. PQR01 (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  WP:GNG as I could find no SIGCOV in reliable sources about him. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep He is famous locally and there are several articles in tamil, which appears frequently on this boy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbangalore (talk • contribs) 06:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No indication of meeting NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails
  WP:GNG - SUN EYE 1 15:48, 22 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.

Namashi Chakraborty

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

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

Does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until film releases. DareshMohan (talk) 01:30, 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!} 22:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PropertyPro.ng

PropertyPro.ng (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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — doesn’t meet
  WP:ORGDEPTH is not met also. Celestina007 (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]