Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 24

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Building the Virginian Railway

Building the Virginian Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This isn't really an encyclopedia article, it's a personal essay in article space. Created in 2005 with zero inline citations, it remains essentially unchanged today. Much of this article simply duplicates Virginian Railway, and what doesn't is often more like a personal essay. Consider lines like:

• "Gambling on that premise, the two big railroads saw to it that the "negotiations" were always unproductive, and Col. Page always declined to indicate the source of his apparently "deep pockets." By this time, Page must surely have been enjoying his newfound power in dealing with the arrogant big railroads. In fact, management of the funding Rogers was providing was handled by Boston financier Godfrey M. Hyams, with whom he had also worked on the Anaconda Company, and many other natural resource projects."
• "If Col. Page and his Deepwater Railway scheme had met with an unpleasant surprise, as it turned out, the big railroads were in for an even bigger one. Page didn't give up his scheme, as most surely must have been anticipated. Instead, he stubbornly continued building his short-line railroad through some of the most rugged terrain of the Mountain State, to the increasing puzzlement of the leaders of the big railroads. They were unaware that one of Page's investors (who were silent partners in the venture) was the powerful Rogers. Henry Rogers was an old hand at mineral and transportation development, and his projects and investments seldom failed. His tenacity, energy, and organizational skills had led him to become one of John D. Rockefeller's key men at the Standard Oil Trust. Always ready to do corporate battle, Rogers wasn't about to have the Deepwater investment foiled by the big railroads."

The article goes off on a huge tangent about Booker T Washingtion which, while interesting trivia, is not relevant to the article's subject at all. There could potentially be a notable subject here, but what exists is so far from an encyclopedia article it merits deletion and starting over (at a title that doesn't sound like a self-published book written by a railfan. I suggest "Construction of the Virginian Railway"). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Virginia, and West Virginia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wow, how did this survive for so long in this condition? It's clearly a personally invested essay pusning one editor's synthesis. The main article already covers the main points. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary content fork that is full of synthesis and essay-type prose. Even if there were enough content to break this section out into its own article, this would be a
  WP:TNT situation anyway, due to the writing style and haphazard/nonexistent inline referencing style. Likewise, there is nothing sourced that is worth backmerging, as far as I can tell. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A relic of a bygone era. That wouldn't (and didn't) stand out as a problem in 2006, but it was never really revisited and brought up to current standards. Also, the primary author sadly passed away in 2011. Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mackensen. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wikipedia has many of these early articles that are too long to be bunk, but unsourced so reliability can't be verified. I'd recommend either deleting it or draftifying until the proper inline citations can be created. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Panama

List of people on the postage stamps of Panama (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)

Yet another barely-sourced list in utter failure of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Panama. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another lists that lacks the sourcing to show it meets our criteria for lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another of these postage stamp articles that fails
  WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 28 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Bible Christian School

Florida Bible Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While the school is closed, it existed during the internet era during which sourcing should be online. What I have found is limited to directories of christian schools (such as this and review sites. Nothing in depth.

I can find no evidence this school meets notability requirements. Joshua Henry was an alumnus, but that is a passing mention of the school and there are a handful of others, but notable alumni don't confer it upton the school. Star Mississippi 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Florida. Star Mississippi 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see a lot of coverage for its baseball team.[4][5][6][7][8] StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- We normally allow articles on High Schools to exist. Notability is not temporary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've seen that for public schools as coverage seems more likely to exist, but less so for K-12 private/religious schools. Notability isn't temporary, but in this case I can't find evidence it ever attained it. Star Mississippi 03:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Peterkingiron, High schools have not had any presumption of notability for 4 years. A public or not for profit private school must meet meet GNG; a for profit school must meet NCORP like any other business. And although notability isn't temporary, a change in our standards for notability are generally treated retroactively. 174.212.227.246 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I did a thorough BEFORE on this and PROD'ed the article. The baseball team story is tangential, and the only thing that really shows up. As far as notability
  WP:SIGCOV required.Jacona (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep There is no evidence of notability by Google search. Nonetheless, public schools should have notability unlike private school that must attain media coverage.Gartuwaso (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a private school.... Jacona (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No any evidence of notability. It's a private school and has no any independent source. Gingie11 (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's nothing here that addresses the topic of the school itself "directly and in detail".4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No, this isn't about transferring notability at all. The baseball team is part of the school. If the baseball team is notable, then the school is notable. StAnselm (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

WP:ROUTINE specifically mentions sports matches as routine coverage. School athletics is covered in local press as a matter of course, and there is a reason why we have that specifically under that guideline. Further, that coverage does not address the topic of the school itself (it's history and notability as a school), which is supposed to be the primary subject of this article. One would assume the primary purpose of this school is to educate its students in academic subjects, not athletics, yet we have no SIGCOV of the institutions primary purpose or its history as an organization.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dariche Asemani

Dariche Asemani (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)

If this were a topic subject to CSD A7, I think it would otherwise meet the criteria. No assertion of notability, no independent source cited. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Existing sources are the app website and Wikidata (????), web search didn't turn up anything else. Just not notable. Ravensfire (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is not a singles independent (or even reliable) source covering the subject. BTW, It's a cross-wiki spam. --Jeeputer (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Air DY1933 Iran diversion

Norwegian Air DY1933 Iran diversion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable aviation incident.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Iran. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom and
  WP:NOTNEWS. BilCat (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Just a
  WP:NOTNEWSPAPER story, no changes in procedures, no lasting effects, no injuries or deaths, no hull loss - just a curiosity in effect. - Ahunt (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Nothing notable about this incident per
  WP:AIRCRASH. This incident was not fatal to humans, did not result in a hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport, and did not result in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per nom. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. This is not an event worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. No lasting impact or other notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:30, 29 June 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. Star Mississippi 22:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soumendu Lahiri

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

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

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

I don't see the person received any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Didn't won any significant award or honor (recognition from the governor of West Bengal isn't a significant honor, they frequently gives this type of honor). The person's works hasn't become a significant monument, won significant critical attention. Full of self references, looks like created by someone close. Article fails

Note that article has been deleted from Bengali Wikipedia. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also Note that @আফতাবুজ্জামান is an administrator of Bengali Wikipedia . Tbengalieditor > Talk 02:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to your statement you told that, "Recognition from the hon'ble Governor of West Bengal isn't a significant honor , they frequently gives this type of honor" . But as per my knowledge is concerned I do know that the honors about which you are speaking about is also given frequently to the respected persons.

But the recognition from the hon'ble Governor of West Bengal, India is not "this type of honor" as per your statement. It is a prestigious honor which is not given to everyone and frequently.

I think you're trying to diminish the value of this prestigious recognition. Tbengalieditor (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A mere "Recognition" is not a significant honor, not same as e.g. Bankim Puraskar, Sahitya Akademi Award etc. Here a teacher from West Bengal got a "Recognition" from Governor of Jharkhand for writing a book, should we create an article about this person? This type of honor/recognition are frequently given, we should not keep this article just because of this. The article was deleted last year with clear consensus. Since then nothing has been changed. No significant coverage, no in-depth coverage. Nothing in Bengali either.

Pinging participant from last afd @

CommanderWaterford, Nomadicghumakkad, Umakant Bhalerao, AniksDutta, David notMD, Whiteguru, Atlanticatticus, and RandomCanadian: --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

As per your statement that the recognition from The Hon'ble Governor is frequently given, can you please help me by telling the name of the persons (at least 20 persons) who have got the recognition from the Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal ?

If the person from West Bengal who has got recognition from The Hon'ble Governor of Jharkhand for his literary work, has written independent books and his literary works has been published from reliable sources like newspapers, and articles on his name have also been published on newspapers, then obviously the person should have an wiki article.

Soumendu Lahiri has written some independent books of poetry and worked with other poets in various collective anthology. Name of some books are added in the bibiliography section of the article with their ISBN No. His literary works and biography have been published on some popular newspapers of West Bengal like- Anandabazar Patrika , Puber Kalom etc. Regards,-- Tbengalieditor (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Literary works has been published from reliable sources like newspapers", "has written some independent books of poetry and worked with other poets in various collective anthology", has "ISBN" doesn't mean they are automatically notable. That's not receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise you can create articles about every columnist, every reporter, every writer of newspaper. Every writer who wrote some books. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying at first that ' "Literary works has been published from reliable sources like newspapers", "has written some independent books of poetry and worked with other poets in various collective anthology", has "ISBN" doesn't mean they are automatically notable.' . On other hand you're saying ''That's not receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'' It means you're focusing on significant coverage in reliable sources after ignoring them. You are accepting the truth in a different way which (The Truth) I said clearly earlier.

Every columnist, every reporter, every writer of newspaper writes on newspaper but generally they do not become the subject of the news or article ; that is why except on notable persons one should not create wiki article on them (Every columnist, every reporter, every writer of newspaper).

As per wiki norms if an author has some independent books (It wil be more helpful if there is ISBN) , he has become the subject of a news article or has recieved a special honor etc. then he is notable (wiki-lawfully but not "automatically"). Please See WP:GNG

• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  • The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
  • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
• "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow
  in any language
  . Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources" should be
  written in English
  . Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

Please check the reference section of the article Soumendu Lahiri. There are multiple significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Respected Sir, you have not answered my question yet - "Can you please help me by telling the name of the persons (at least 20 persons) who have got the recognition from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal ?" As you have told that the honor from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal is frequently given. Regards -- Tbengalieditor (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving significant coverage doesn't mean publishing your work on a newspaper, It means someone wrote about you/your work, and not just 1-2 line. Also it has to be in a reliable sources and independent of the subject. I failed to see those in the article, most of them are unreliable, self source, primary, or passing mentions. I already reviewed references section and that's why i started this afd. Wait for others to comment, if they think reference are reliable, not self source, not primary, or not passing mentions, article will be kept. You don't have to worry, i am not destroying your article. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir, You have said, "... I failed to see those in the article, most of them are unreliable...". But please permit me to mention here that he has been the subject in news articles in depth and his works have been published on newspapers which have wikipedia page like- Puber Kalom, Anandabazar Patrika.

Is it not a significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject ? Regards --- Tbengalieditor 🚀 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Publishing you're work on Puber Kalom, Anandabazar Patrika doesn't mean you're automatically notable. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান Not only works, But also Biography in depth on renowned newspapers. Regards--- Tbengalieditor 🚀 (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. a poem, primary, written by subject himself

2. interview, primary, unreliable source

3. written by subject himself

4. unreliable source

5. Written by his son, primary

6. unreliable + passing mention

7. passing mention

8. primary/unreliable

9. passing mention + unreliable source

10-12. primary + unreliable source + written by subject himself

13. unreliable source + passing mention

14-18. primary + unreliable source + written by subject himself

19. unreliable source + passing mention

20-27. primary + unreliable source + written by subject himself

28-30. unreliable source

31. passing mention

33-40. unreliable source

41-43. passing mention + unreliable source

IMO, Article fails

WP:GNG, but wait for others to comment, if they think references OK, article will be kept. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Widely circulated and renowned newspapers published from West Bengal of India, which have own wikipedia pages like- Anandabazar Patrika, Puber Kalom from which his works and articles have been published and you're saying these are not reliable sources. On the other hand The Honor from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal is mere a puppet to you as you told previously - "A mere "Recognition" is not a significant honor,...". But you're failed to show as well as trying to avoid my question , "Can you please help me by telling the name of the persons (at least 20 persons) who have got the recognition from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal ?" As you have told that the honor from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal is frequently given.

Lahiri has written four independent books and worked in many collective anthology which have ISBN, which also has no importance to you.

Whenever I'm talking about major points, you're misleading the conversation. Let the respected administrators come , they will decide whether the article will be kept or not. Regards --- Tbengalieditor 🚀 (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubt about Puber Kalom. It's more about what type of coverage. 1-2 lines or passing mention on Anandabazar is not significant coverage. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, his biography was published on Puber Kalom in depth along with other newspapers which have R.N.I No.(Government of India).

and above all he got recognition from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal, India. With Best Regards --- Tbengalieditor 🚀 (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should stop, there is no point repeating above discussion again. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbengalieditor, Q: Do have any connection with the subject? If not, how did you took this photo? আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please describe the reason why this article should not be kept. Has it any proper reason? or it is just a reflection of any influence as you are from bengali wikipedia & the person who nominated this page for deletion is an administrator of bengali wikipedia. Regards --- Tbengalieditor > Talk 19:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You should notice this or this before accusing me that i am influencing someone. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Think before you tell anyone, there's already a lot of discussion about the source, i don't see a good reason to bring them back here. —MdsShakil (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more consideration of the sources from other editors who frequent AFD with more substantial feedback than "per nom". The discussion has to go beyond nominator vs. page creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Source analysis by আফতাবুজ্জামান shows that
  WP:ANYBIO is not met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @MrsSnoozyTurtle After Delete there will be a ":" which you have not written.

  & Point to be noted, page history clearly shows that you had added fanpov tag before this AFD started. But at that time you didn’t tagged this page for deletion. What makes you compelled to do that so? Regards ---

  What makes you compell to do that so? Tbengalieditor > Talk 02:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed I haven't, but hopefully that doesn't make my !vote invalid :)

  There has already been too much dubious behaviour here, so I request that we just focus on the sources and Wikipedia's policies from now on please. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : This article Passes
  WP:AUTHOR.God choise (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC) — God choise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

  Not sure how article passes ANYBIO, AUTHOR if subject doesn't have any

  WP:SIGCOV. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt per the cogent source analysis by আফতাবুজ্জামান. Fails
  WP:ANYBIO. Please salt this so that it has to go to draft if it's re-created a third time.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 2 July 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. Star Mississippi 22:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Hurdy Gurdy

Annie Hurdy Gurdy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

despite having songs appear with others on shows and films, i don't see any coverage of Gurdy herself that would warrant an article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The
  citations provided in this article show that there is coverage of Gurdy. She is/has been a member of multiple music groups and has preformed with multiple notable acts in her career. She has also established a successful solo career. Additionally, this article is also available in German: Annie Hurdy Gurdy: German Version. Catsandgurdies (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep
  draft so that it may be developed further, rather than removed. Mothswallow (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)— Mothswallow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have struck Mothswallow's !vote as a confirmed sock of Catsandgurdies.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It appears
  secondary commentary, and there is a report by Dextero about her viral TikTok performance of video game music, without context about her or her career. I have not found better sourcing in an online search. Beccaynr (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 2 July 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. Fee free to create a redirect from this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Road, Melbourne

South Road, Melbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find any secondary sources covering the road itself, with my searches only turning up results for the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Saw this in NPP myself yesterday and thought it looked non-notable, but decided to defer to a more experienced reviewer. A number of similar articles have been deleted recently for the same reasons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GEOROAD. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Dingley Arterial Project, one of the components of this project involves the South Road extension. Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:36, 29 June 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.

Enrique De Jongh Caula

Enrique De Jongh Caula (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)

Appears to fail

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, Engineering, and Cuba. Ploni (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• His claim to notability would presumably be as a member of the
  WP:PROF is "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society)". But he isn't listed as one of the 252 current members. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Withdraw nomination: Figured it out—it seems he died a few years ago and the article wasn't updated ([9]). I'll go ahead and withdraw the nomination! –Ploni (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I did wonder about that. How many more living dead bios do we have I wonder - all those sports people! Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 26 June 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.

Skeptics with a K (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 pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, Science, Websites, and England. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Evidently, many of the references are clearly RS, and the article has been awarded C-Class quality by both Wikipedia:WikiProject Podcasting and Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism for this reason. RS: Metro (British newspaper), BBC Radio Oxford, BBC Radio 5 Live, BBC Radio Merseyside, BBC Radio 4, sv:UR Samtiden (Swedish television programme), New Scientist, Radio City Talk, Liverpool Echo etc. It could be argued that some of the self-published sources should be removed, but there is little doubt that the subject passes GNG and WEBCRIT. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you perhaps give a few examples of reliable sources used to support the article, because I cant see them. Your list of broadcasters above seems to be unrelated to the point you are trying to make. Thanks. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the References section or use ctrl+F and you'll find all of them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did my due diligence before commenting above, no need to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. The sources extant are pathetic, and per the nominater, do not pass GNG or WEBCRIT. I cannot understand how you came to such a conclusion. Your list of media sources are not sources for this article, but simply links to their respective articles. The project assessments too are poor, bearing in mind the assessment criteria for RS content. C-Class is way too good. The refs are in fact self-serving refs to the podcast or the parent organisation, which cannot be used to establish notability. Please could you actually show which refs you consider establish notability, rather than brush off my concerns like you did. thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References (current version):

• 1,3,5,6,7,8a,14a,15,17a,18b,19a,20,21b,22a-f,23,24 self-published, non-independent (podcast itself)
• 2, non-independent (website)
• 8b,11,14d,16,18a,19b,25c,27 self-published (blog)
• 8c,9,10,12,13a,13b,14b,14c,21a self-published (podcast)
• 25a self-published (YouTube)
• 4,17b,25b?,25d (perhaps) qualifying source but not about subject
• 26 can't access/unclear

Even the best of these aren't really about the subject - as an example, the BBC cite (25d) is simply introducing an interviewee by saying the guest "also writes the blog Skeptics with a K," which is not the kind of thing that confers notability. I'm not seeing any WP:RS. Agricolae (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No conclusion can be drawn based on C-class assessments. For most project, C-class represents the absolute bare minimum of having references, appropriate structure, and general coherence. Further, it is not 'awarded' by a project, but rather by a single editor of unknown expertise (and the first assessment given is usually used to populate the entire set, rather than separate assessments being performed for each project). A C-class assessment is no indication of notability. Agricolae (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, this fails GNG, no demonstration of NOTABILITY at all. TNT required, and I dont even think a redirect is necessary to the parent article, which adequately covers this subject in a single paragraph. -Roxy the correctly spelled sceptic. wooF 13:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see merge/redirect being viable here either. I don't see anything in the sources that would confer
  WP:DUE mention, and the comments at this AfD about sources "somehow" reaching that point appears to be hand-waving. KoA (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete complete lack of WP:RS to document anything more than mere existence. I would recommend redirect to Merseyside Skeptics Society but the coverage of the blog there suffers from the same sourcing problems. Agricolae (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:RPRGM per nom. Nederlandse failed to analyze the sources in the article. SBKSPP (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Silja Line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harri Hylje

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

)

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

i'm not sure how a standalone article on a company's seal/logo is notable or encyclopedic in this case - it doesn't appear to have significant in depth coverage in rs in any language and what little can be sourced can probably just be placed in the company's article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Animal, and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Silja Line. There's some coverage, but niche/unreliable (at least one cited source boldy declares itself to be a press release). There's room in the target article to absorb this. -_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Advertising. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Silja Line, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 25. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, but it would probably be good to have Estonian/Finnish input to see if it has any real merit (I see there is an article at Finnish Wiki). Advertising characters can go on to have multifaceted careers, but the test would be whether it has any meaningful reference away from the ferry company, as others in the category 'Advertising characters' presumably have. Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A close parallel exists in the case of
  Ville Viking and Viking Line, but there I have simply proposed a merger. Kevin McE (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge as per above. I'm not seeing any meaningful coverage in Finnish media. Fi.wp cites mostly non-independent sources. There are two Markkinointi & Mainonta stories, but I've always felt a bit iffy about how independent that magazine can actually be seen as. The vibes I'm getting is more along the lines of "glorified press releases/marketing" rather than proper journalistic content. In any case, the stories are not much either: [10] ("we made a new logo which is no longer smiling"), [11] ("there's an interactive screen with the mascot on it on one tram stop"). Ljleppan (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all. The substance of this article comes from press releases and other inappropriate sources. There is a compromise to merge and there might be enough reliable material to preserve after someone removes the marketing/PR stuff. Jontesta (talk) 01:40, 28 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Amir-Arjomand

Lily Amir-Arjomand (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 to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Museums and libraries, and Iran. Ploni (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Textbook fail. Tjczzo (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Keep - a source in the article, Eminent Persians: The Men and Women who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979 : in Two Volumes, Syracuse University Press at pp. 167 and 838, and sources, e.g. A Tribute to the Legacy and Vision of Lily Amir Arjomand and Kanoon (
  WP:BASIC notability and indicate the article can be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Per a UNESCO publication, Made to Measure: Children's Books in Developing Countries (1980), p. 89, "Under the leadership of Lily Amir - Arjomand, the Institute for Intellectual Development of Children and Young People built and operated a system of some 300 libraries, reading centres and mobile units throughout Iran."; and from "Comparative & International Library Science" (Scarecrow Press, 1977) at p. 106 "As she developed the children's libraries and cultural centers run by her Institute for the Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults, Lily Amir - Arjomand was most strongly influenced by her Rutgers library science work under Mary Gaver." In International Handbook of Contemporary Developments in Librarianship (Greenwood Press, 1981), "The children's public system lost Lily Amir - Arjomand , who was the founder of the system" is noted at p. 136. Beccaynr (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep based on sources found by Beccaynr. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes
  WP:SIGCOV based on the evidence provided by Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the sources that have come to light over the course of this AfD, particularly from Beccanyr. The article may not be that great, but it could be improved very well from what we have here. jp×g 05:20, 4 July 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.

Loch Naver

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

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

Non-notable Loch. All references are just links to online maps, etc. with nothing supporting notability. Singularity42 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But the Loch is Notable, and the sources have information. Especially under the Fishing Section. It is like Loch Urigilll or Loch Borollan or Loch Rimsdale or Loch Hope or Loch Brora, why didn't they ever get proposed for deletion, they're smaller, more remote and are less important that Loch Naver? I don't understand. N1TH Music (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this seems to be a resonably sized lake and there seems to be coverage[12][13]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tidy. Loch exists, is large enough and seems notable enough. However the article needs a real clean up, removal of inappropriate references and I'd love to know where all these settlements around it are as only Alltnaharra seems to actually exist. Canterbury Tail talk 23:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OS Cites all 4 as existing as does Canmore and others, particularly Klibreck which is cited by all maps I found. Also Ben Klibreck exists N1TH Music (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but even on the OS maps I cannot find any settlements by the name of Redhackaistelll and Dailmallhart situated on the loch. Canterbury Tail talk 14:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail here on second thought it is a map and might not be reliable but it's still produced by OS. Also I think you spelled Reidhachaisteil wrong or maybe I did because if I search it up I get many results including a source from Canmore which I think we can all agree is reliable. N1TH Music (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a dead abandoned settlement of a few houses, not an active settlement. No one lives there, so they're not settlements. Don't you see how much of this is

WP:SYNTHESIS to reach the wrong conclusion? Canterbury Tail talk 17:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Canterbury Tail I understand the part about how a dead settlement maybe shouldn't be listed in the settlements section, even though my judgement was if the place is or was populated than it counts, but I was probably wrong. But honestly, no I don't see how this is "Original Research" OS and Canmore both show me these localities or abandoned settlements or whatever they are called and I label them as settlements. The OS map writes them in a kind of text they would use for settlements and so does the map Canmore provides. Additionally the Canmore map (Which is an edition of OS) Lists places such as "Gravel Pits" "Sheepfolds" and other things I would associate with active settlements there. However if you remain certain that these do not classify as settlements that nobody has any issue with removing them from the list. N1TH Music (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something which has hitherto not been mentioned regarding issues of active or abandoned settlements is that the population of this area was impacted by the events of the Sutherland Clearances two hundred years ago. For example, "Soon afterwards Sellar went to Achness, near the eastern end of Loch Naver, and gave formal notice to quit to some of the tenants on his land." [14] AllyD (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve: This article was brought to AfD less than 15 minutes after it was created? I am not sure how much
  WP:BEFORE was done in that time, but that could have identified existing coverage such as the article (albeit brief) in the Gazetteer for Scotland. As things stand, it is a bit of a mess, with the article creator having responded by moving it to draft, and neither the draft nor the redirect carrying this AfD notification. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Regarding the history of use of the Loch, see also the summary in Groome's 19th century Ordnance Gazetteer of Scotland [15] and the Canmore entry on the Grummore Broch: "This broch ... occupies a short, flat, projecting point of low ground on the north shore of Loch Naver ... On the low, fertile ground around the shores of Loch Naver stand many modern farms as well as two more brochs on the opposite shore." [16]. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A little

WP:BEFORE, please? . I saw the article shortly after it was created as I was doing NPP at the time. There were approximately 50 or so links in the article in its original version. I went through them, and from what I could tell they were either just maps of the area or references to places nearby. By that point there had been no additional content to the references (the additional references added were after I tagged it for AfD yesterday). My logic was given the creator was able to add 50+ links to the article but couldn't find anything that actually supported notability, then they likely didn't exist or could not be easily located (I didn't know about the CIR issues raised at ANI at the time). Anyway, given there are better sources, I have no objection to the article staying with a major clean up. Singularity42 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Didn't we recently have a discussion somewhere that resulted in the disallowing of moving an article to draft space while it is at AfD?
  Phil Bridger (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Yes, here it is.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I have moved it back from draft. Jay (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a bad practice to send a 14 minute old article to AFD. There are many alternative to automatic deletion and this is highly discouraging to content creators. It would have been better to open a conversation with the page creator rather trying to delete an article as soon as it has been created. The page creator was incorrect to move a page involved in an AFD discussion to Draft space but that could have been a move you made rather than advocating immediate deletion for a new article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tse Ka Kui

Tse Ka Kui (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 deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Hong Kong. Ploni (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it. I was forced by my then Boss, i.e. the very title of the article, to create a series of pages to promote his name. I genuinely think he does NOT deserve a wikipage of his own. PLEASE do delete it. Thank you. 119.247.237.33 (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage about him in my searches for sources. Tse Ka Kui (traditional Chinese: 謝家駒; simplified Chinese: 谢家驹) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Heah

Carmel Heah (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)

Promotional article for subject that fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Malaysia. Ploni (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did all the normal searches and have concluded that she is not notable. CT55555 (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Doesn't pass
  WP:NAUTHOR if significant independant reviews are found (I haven't looked, hence this is not a !vote). -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I found and added to the article two reviews for one book. I don't think it's quite enough for
  WP:AUTHOR, but if reviews of other books could be found I could change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 26 June 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.

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)

Sources appear to a blog, multiple postal directories, one reference to the Daily Mail but with zero way to go verify, and another blog. valereee (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. valereee (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mentioned in [17] the A-Z of Leath, Secret Leath and to a lesser extent Export Planning. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per article improvements and potential for further improvement. Artw (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've added a few more reliable sources. It's a slight mystery how such a well-known company should have such a flakily-sourced article, as plenty of reliable materials are available. However, notability, as nom should certainly know well, depends on what exists in the world, not on what has been thrown together in the article. This company is beyond doubt notable, as a quick "before" search would have established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was reeling in horror when I saw this nomination. A nation’s grandmothers subsisted on Crawfords biscuits for decades!! A quick search found sources at 1, 2, and 3 as well as many other snippets I can’t view. Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is sufficient as established by references. Coldupnorth (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While in no way connected to United Biscuits, I must disclose that yesterday I did eat an entire pack of custard creams as a result of this discussion and subsequent edits. Thank you. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Crawfords was a major brand in Scotland for many years, As said above the sources in the article may not have been great, but there will be others out there and it is clearly notable. Dunarc (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think this is a snow keep (flood of custard cream topping, or something), if anyone would like to do the honours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article is much improved Melissa Highton (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of philatelic libraries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philas Library

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

)

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

Non-notable place with one source about donations. Gabe114 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Australia. Gabe114 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing in gnews, and passing mentions in gbooks. Fails
  WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per 4meter4. Cabrils (talk) 23:05, 1 July 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.

Senegalese people in Sweden

Senegalese people in Sweden (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)

Unclear to me if this meets notability criteria Tow (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this page needs to be deleted at all. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found Statistics Sweden, and that's where I got the information from. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe this page meets notability Criteria. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, I agree. Will do Speedy Keep. Thanks for your work! Tow (talk) 15:55, 25 June 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. Star Mississippi 22:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IA Financial Group

IA Financial Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a company, not

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Quebec. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Surprisingly hard to find information, this is a large Canadian financial institution. Mostly French sources,: they were featured on a consumer protection show in Quebec here: [18], an article about some financial trouble they encountered [19] and a large fine they had to pay [20] and a story about a hacker gaining access to their computer network [21]. Newspaper and a television source. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Oaktree b. Also, readers need our help in dealing with this major company. Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . Passes NCORP per the sources identified by Oaktree b.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 2 July 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.

Johns Hopkins University in popular culture

Johns Hopkins University in popular culture (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 same case as with

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Education, Lists, and Maryland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another unjustified collection of trivia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete So far, trivia; the one case that isn't is about the hospital, not the university. Mangoe (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure trivia, no sources found to prove this is a topic worth listing. Also a textbook example of
  WP:NOTTVTROPES. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete- as with the other Suchandsuch University in popular culture, this is content that appears to have got lost on its way to TVTropes. Reyk _YO! 03:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another example of
  WP:OR by editors, without independent sources to talk reliably and neutrally about the topic. Jontesta (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for closer: consider draftifiation (with full history) at User:Regpath/sandbox/Draft/Johns Hopkins University in popular culture? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to sourcing issues. Fails
  WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:50, 30 June 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. Sandstein 12:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Jessica O'Grady

Disappearance of Jessica O'Grady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of sustained coverage. Coverage appears to have been mostly local, with some limited wider coverage in true crime outlets. Daask (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Daask (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nebraska. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep She disappeared in 2006.

  WP:SUSTAINED

  coverage demonstrates notability as follows:

  • 2007:Cooper, T. (2007, Mar 20). Case is tough; so is jury selection 14 people will be picked to decide whether christopher edwards, 20, is guilty of killing jessica O'grady.the christopher edwards trial: [metro, sunrise edition]. Omaha World - Herald Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/case-is-tough-so-jury-selection-14-people-will-be/docview/401965090/se-2?accountid=196403
  • 2009: Cooper, T. (2009, Apr 25). World-herald exclusive: JESSICA O'GRADY CASE. Omaha World - Herald Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/world-herald-exclusive/docview/402088838/se-2?accountid=196403
  • 2014 https://www.ketv.com/article/was-christopher-edwards-convicted-with-planted-evidence/7645129
  • 2016 https://www.ketv.com/article/what-happened-to-jessica-o-grady/7660099
  • 2018 https://www.wowt.com/content/news/Court-denies-convicted-killers-appeal-500700082.html
  • 2019 https://www.dvidshub.net/news/322752/career-citizen-soldier-reflects-conviction-omaha-missing-person-case-13-years-later CT55555 (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The
  WP:NOT#NEWS
  (i.e. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material). There are a variety of criteria that can be applied.

1)

WP:LASTING

, Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. There appears to be no indication in the available coverage that the inability to find her body has had a lasting effect on e.g. society or legislation. There also appears to be no impact on the related criminal case, e.g.

• "Dornan: Prosecutors don't need body He says there is "significant" evidence to prove Jessica O'Grady's death" Zagurski, Kristin. Omaha World - Herald 10 June 2006 (via Proquest, abstract only),
• "EDWARDS' MURDER TRIAL BEGINS TODAY A quest for justice, closure Loved ones still hope to find Jessica O'Grady's remains", Cooper, Todd. Omaha World - Herald 19 Mar 2007 (via Proquest, abstract only).

There is another burst of news in 2009/2010, e.g.

• "World-Herald Exclusive: JESSICA O'GRADY CASE" Cooper, Todd. Omaha World - Herald 25 Apr 2009 (via ProQuest, abstract only, states only: "A trace amount of Omaha victim Jessica O'Grady's blood is found on the blade of a suspect's sword The key differences Unlike the car in the Murdock case, Douglas County prosecutors say, Edwards' room was not under the exclusive control of law enforcement."),
• "World-Herald Exclusive: Kofoed charged with tampering" Ferak, John. Omaha World - Herald 23 Apr 2009 (via ProQuest, abstract only, includes "The Douglas County CSI director, who has processed evidence in numerous high-profile murder cases, faces criminal charges for his handling of evidence in a Murdock, Neb., double homicide."),
• "WORLD-HERALD EXCLUSIVE: Edwards alleges evidence planted" Ferak, John. Omaha World - Herald 14 July 2010 (via Proquest, abstract only, includes, "Dunning said authorities collected overwhelming blood evidence from Edwards' residence"),

which do not appear to demonstrate

WP:LASTING

impact from the criminal case.

2)

WP:GEOSCOPE includes An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. For this article, the event is mostly covered by local news, and coverage on the niche programming Forensic Files and Investigation Discovery

does not appear sufficient to support this article, particularly as this guideline also emphasizes demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group as key to supporting notability, which appears to be lacking per the sources.

3)

WP:INDEPTH notes coverage must be significant and not in passing, which includes analysis that puts events into context. This includes TV news specialty shows, not necessarily a narrative news presentation [24]

(how the Investigation Discovery episode appears promoted) but possibly the Forensic Files episode. The routine news coverage and passing mentions related to her disappearance and the related criminal case do not appear to support notability per this guideline.

4)

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE

states, The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance, and most of the available coverage appears to focus on the criminal case and appeals unrelated to the inability to find her body.

5)

WP:DIVERSE

notes, Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, and there does not appear to be a particularly wide range between the local news, the two AP reports about the criminal case appeal, and two episodes of niche crime television to show the significance of the inability to find her body. Circumstantial evidence was used to obtain a conviction, even though her body was not found, and appeals based on alleged defects in the investigation and other procedural issues were unsuccessful.

6) Per

reliable sources

. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline....

Per the guidelines and available sources, coverage does not appear sufficiently

WP:NOTNEWS, so my !vote is to delete. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak delete Whilst there is some independant coverage, Beccaynr's reasoned argument has swayed me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Hais Hardee Jr.

John Hais Hardee Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep. Sufficiently notable, unless a major in the U.S. Army is not notable. Seasider53 (talk)

• A major is indeed not considered automatically notable.
  Fram (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I don't have perfect visibility to the sources, but the sources I can access indeed appear to either discuss the family in the aggregate (ref #2) or to be non-independent (ref #5 has same surname, ref #6 starts with "..my grandfather.."). As for
  WP:NSOLDIER. Search engines are giving me only the standard non-reliable sources (geni, legacy, findagrave etc.) I'll happily change my vote if someone can identify actual notability establishing coverage, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Ljleppan (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ljleppan, thank you. We live and learn. Seasider53 (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we used to consider that all holders of at least the rank of brigadier general (in the US system, other systems use different names) were notable. We have since decided even that was not a justified inclusion standard. Majors are way, way, way, way below the inclusion critieria. Wikipedia is not the place to post the family history research you have done on one of your ancestors, unless they are clearly meeting inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not an alternative to Ancestry or several other sites that allow you to post information on your family. That is no our purpose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many wrong conclusions can you jump to in one paragraph? A lot, apparently. Seasider53 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hardee is not listed in Heitman's "Historical Register and Dictionary of the U.S. Army," which is an extremely inclusive list of all officers commissioned in the army between 1789 and 1902. The son, William, is listed, but neither John Jr. nor John Sr. are listed. This does not preclude their being commissioned in a state militia, but it's pretty definitive when it comes to the Regular Army (regardless of commissioning source). So even if majors were considered notable (and they aren't), the rank can't be verified using a standard secondary source. Intothatdarkness 23:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Falls well short of notability standards. It appears this may also be the case for several other articles about members of the Hardee family and their former family plantation. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shikhi Sharma

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

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

biography of a non-notable person MurielMary (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "It took around 1 year for her to complete the book with bank job and family responsibilities." Good grief. Fails WP:GNG in spades. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there is a Shikhi Sharma who appears to likely have
  WP:BASIC notability, potentially as "the longest serving woman chief executive officer in the banking sector" as of 2018 (DNA, 2018), e.g. MoneyControl results, Bloomberg Prime opinion, Forbes profile, but is not the author (Indian Express, 2022) described in this article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The links are for Shikha Sharma, Axis Bank ex-CEO; and an article is already there about her. Hemantha (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Hemantha, I reviewed my research too quickly and with interest in developing an article, and failed to notice the spelling. Results for Shikha Sharma were most of what I found when searching for sources about Shikhi Sharma. Beccaynr (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 25 June 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.

Sajad Gul

Sajad Gul (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)

Appears to be known just for his arrest, no coverage other than that.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Crime, and India. Hitro talk 11:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:
  WP:BLP1E, not enough for a stand-alone article for a non-public figure who has only been arrested. Ravensfire (talk) 14:25, 24 June 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.

Nuri Otay

Nuri Otay (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 pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Asia, Europe, and Turkey. Kadı Message 11:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not, indeed. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:20, 24 June 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.

Huff (board games)

Huff (board games) (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)

Numerous credible sources exist, including two books linked and another very old one from 1891 that can be found on Google Books, but are trivial, one-sentence mentions that are IMO not contributing to "significant coverage". An alternative to deletion would be merging into the article for checkers/droughts. VickKiang (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 24 June 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.

RainCatcher

RainCatcher (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)

Sadly, I cannot seem to find any significant coverage of this organisation in reliable, independent secondary sources. I might be wrong and I hope I am. However, Google rarely lies and a Google search returned nothing. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I nominate this page for deletion for not meeting wp:ORG. GDX420 (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Confusion added by a project at Imperial College London called Raincatcher Imperial. As per nom, I could find nothing out there, and that sucks, but WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Uppum Mulakum. ✗plicit 11:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juhi Rustagi

Juhi Rustagi (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 log for this page reads like a who's who of new page patrol. It's a mess, it's always been a mess and I'd recommend it be WP:SALTed to stop it continuing to be a mess. UPE, fails WP:GNG, has been tagged, PRODed and now really needs to go. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about the log, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Juhi_Rustagi&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=review&wpfilters%5B%5D=patrol&wpfilters%5B%5D=tag&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers makes it a "a who's who of new page patrol"? Why does it need to be salted when there is no history of re-creating the article? Vexations (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftified, moved back, tagged and tagged and tagged. Also PRODded, PROD removed. Consistent issues include linkrot, copy edit, notability and blp sources tags. Yes, no re-creation, but also yes, persistent insistence on maintaining substandard article with poor sourcing and little/no notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes,

copy editing. Another problem that cannot be solved by editing an article. Vexations (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per my rationale in the (now contested) PROD. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Uppum Mulakum. Juhi Rustagi played "Lachu" in the in the sitcom Uppum Malukum, and has received some coverage in Indian news sources based on that role. She quit that role sometime in 2020 to focus on her studies. She doesn't appear to have played any other significant roles since then. Vexations (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Uppum Mulakum Onmyway22 talk 15:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Murder of Anni Dewani#Shrien Dewani. ✗plicit 11:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shrien Dewani

Shrien Dewani (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)

Very clearly WP:CRIME and WP:ONEEVENT both very much apply to this article, which is tagged for notability (without the crime, Dewani does not, indeed, meet WP:GNG albeit the crime is clearly terrible and regrettable.) but really needs to go for all three reasons. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Restoring the redirect is, of course, an option. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the redirect, there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of Shrien Dewani except for in the contntext of Murder of Anni Dewani. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Rosguill. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for reasons stated plus much of the content duplicates the main murder page, so there doesn't appear to be separate content worth merging from here. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 29 June 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.

Grub Street Productions

Grub Street Productions (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)

Defunct TV production company fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP no significant coverage, reviews of its productions and articles about sitcoms with passing mentions, where at all. Created Frasier, which article mentions them as one of the production companies behind the series - which is pretty much WP:DUE weight. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Business, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 24 June 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!} 06:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expekt.com

Expekt.com (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)

one of the first major online sports betting operators made me think this had a chance at being a notable company, but "one of" isn't too strong, and I can't find any sourcing to verify this. There's nothing to expand on from the Swedish article and sourcing in both languages are press releases and executive changes, nothing beyond run of the mill and certainly nothing to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 15:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Organizations, Companies, and Sweden. Star Mississippi 15:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. Star Mississippi 15:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NCOMPANY. "One of whatever", poorly sourced, is just not encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, several mentions in reliable and notable sources that can be used to expand the article: https://www.moratidning.se/2009-12-16/conny-gesar-har-salt-spelbolaget-expekt https://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/a/BJr3O9/furstendomet-monaco-koper-svenska-expekt https://www.svd.se/a/f44b1215-7130-3092-8ed1-c19102631bb1/svenska-miljardarer-pa-spel https://www.breakit.se/artikel/28238/leovegas-forvarvar-expekt-for-50-miljoner https://www.realtid.se/ledningsbyte-i-expekt-efter-brak/ https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/hans-hoga-spel-betalar-sig/ Sjö (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  News about sale/merger acquisitions are somewhat routine and/or press-releases. On the bright side, some of them do seem to provide at least a brief description of the company... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sjö. This search retrieves recurring coverage in Sweden's largest daily, this one contains even more form the largest business daily. This article mentions Expekt as having been the biggest online gambling company in Sweden in 2005, while others place is among the 3-6 biggest gambling companies in Sweden overall. Väsk (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment maybe it meets WP:NCORP, however the review of local media is needed to evaluate the media coverage and its quality. --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after reviewing the new Swedish citations presented by Sjö I agree that it meets notability. For example, these seem to be good: this, this and this. Zeddedm (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see there is a couple of
  WP:SPAs here. Is it a sock pile on? scope_creep^Talk 06:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete Fails
  WP:SIRS
  . Lookings at some of the refs on this page alone. Apart from the raw search url which is non-rs for Afd:

• [25] This is a routine annoucement of a sale.
• [[26]] This one is a press-release.
• [[27]] A routine annoucement of being bought.
• [[28]] Another routine annoucement failing
  WP:CORPDEPTH
  . Being sold.
• [[29]] More routine coverage. The old owners will share 1.4billion. Fails
  WP:CORPDEPTH
  . monies.

I have no faith that any of these references constitute proper secondary sources that are in-depth, independent and significant, that satisfies

WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree, sources are routine financing, company news. So we do not pass WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore
  HighKing⁺⁺ 20:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all.
  WP:SIGCOV requirement. Jontesta (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Might be popular to some but not notable for Wiki. killer bee  14:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 11:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dejavu (2022 film)

Dejavu (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Dejavu (2022 film)

Unreleased film that does not satisfy any version of

An article was created in article space, and was then moved correctly to draft space by

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are you only assessing the article? You have the film listed on a few other websites, some articles like this one around. [30]. It won't be reviewed until after it's release. I don't see anything wrong with the article. The actors in it are known in that part of the world. Which suggests it should be very well advertised there. I am sure there will be decent sources around. I really don't know what the project have against brand new stub articles of late. Govvy (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Does not have significant independent coverage (note that ads do not count as independent coverage) per
  WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 12:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Draftify per
  WP:TOOSOON. Not enough signficant coverage to meey NFF yet. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Borderng on keep, since the arguments for keeping have remained unadressed by the "delete" side. Sandstein 13:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rauf Arifoghlu

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)

Sent to draft by OneI, uncited material removed from article, material was banged back in by creator and plonked into mainspace in its original condition. Founder of redlinked newspaper and media group, runs redlinked magazine, given redlinked awards. No public service, no position held, founder of re-established party (founded in 1911) he then leaves. It's all very, well, marginal. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Azerbaijan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb, Rauf Arifoğlu was a candidate for the parliamentary elections several times.[31]; [32] He was imprisoned several times for his political activities. And he was recognized as a political prisoner by many international organizations. RFE/RL; [33]; [34]; [35]. His last parliamentary candidacy was controversial. All Azerbaijani media wrote about this right. The election in that region was cancelled BBC; [36], it was not repeated even after 2 years. (Google Translate) --Samral (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG.--Kadı Message 23:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  GNG ne demek? Samral (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Samral, WP:GNG. Kadı Message 14:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kadı bu yorumunuz bu şekliyle çok genel olmuyor mu? O kaidenin hangi ibaresine göre GNG değil. Yukarıdakı yorumumu okudunuz mu? Şahıs bir kaç kez siyasi sebeplerden hüküm giymiş. Cumhurbaşkanının uçağını kaçırmaya teşebbüsle suçlanmış ve haps edilmiş. Bu olaylarda hapse atılmış. Sovyetler Birliği zamanında da aynı şekilde. Amnesty International, HRW, Freedom House ve bir çok uluslararası kuruluş onu politik mahpus olarak tanımış. Kaç kez parlamentoda aday olmuş. Son seçimde bir çok kuruluşa göre millet vekili seçilse de YSK tarafından o bölgedeki seçim iptal edildi. Kendisi 30 yıldır gazeteci ve medya holding patronu. Kurucusu olduğu gazetenin yaşı Azerbaycanın bağımsızlık yaşından bile fazla. Siz şimdi bu şahsın GNG olmadığını mı söylüyorsunuz? Sizce böyle bir yorum objektif mi?--Samral (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Samral, If you text in English, I can reply to your question. Kadı Message 14:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Burada Türkçe bildiğiniz, hatta Türkçe Vikimedi projelerinde hizmetli olduğunuz yazıyor. Samral (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Samral, That's correct but we are in English Wikipedia now. Kadı Message 14:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kadı, isn't your comment too general as it is? According to which phrase on that base, it is not GNG. Did you read my comment above? He was convicted several times for political reasons. He was charged with attempting to hijack the President's plane and was imprisoned. He was imprisoned in these events. It was the same in the time of the Soviet Union. Amnesty International, HRW, Freedom House and many international organizations recognized him as a political prisoner. How many times has he been a candidate in parliament? Although he was elected as a deputy according to many organizations in the last election, the election in that region was canceled by the YSK. He has been a journalist and media conglomerate boss for 30 years. The age of the newspaper he is the founder of is even more than the age of independence of Azerbaijan. Are you now saying that this person is not GNG? Do you think such a comment is objective? (Google Translate) Samral (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read the policy? Kadı Message 16:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]