Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 3 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz 22:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Teleplan (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)

Company appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 Marvel Comics characters: F. It would help the closer if participants didn't suggest redirecting to another redirect.

For me, redirects show up as a different color so you know immediately that the redirect target suggested wasn't appropriate. Liz 22:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Flux (comics) (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)

Two minor characters that don't appear to have any significant coverage in reliable sources necessary to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Liz 06:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 00:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

George Boswell (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 reality TV contestant; PROD removed without comment. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable enough for an article. He didn't win either of the series he was in and I couldn't find evidence of significant coverage of anything unrelated to Big Brother. Suonii180 (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 into single article. There is clear consensus that only a single list of characters is appropriate. Which title that should exist under ought to be determined via talk page discussion, as there is no consensus here. To the unfamiliar observer, this title appears to be the logical one to keep; however, it may be there is nuance here I am missing. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Neighbours characters (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)

Surplus to requirements now series has ended, per consensus at Talk:List of regular Neighbours characters#Moving the article. Content has already been merged to List of regular Neighbours characters in its entirety, and project links altered accordingly (and stablisised in their new form). U-Mos (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Nadir Ali (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)

Pakistani prank YouTuber with more than 3 million subscribers. The only non-trivial coverage is about him having to pay some money because he apparently didn't pay his taxes (see for example). BilletsMauves (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete nothing notable found, youtubers generally aren't notable here, being a tax fraud (or not) isn't notable. Only sources are listings of him appearing at various functions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Seems like it may be a weak keep. He has a significant amount of coverage, even outside of Pakistan: for example, in a fairly large, English language UAE-based newspaper, and in Pakistan's largest newspaper. Tax evasion may not be enough to meet notability requirements, but the fact that his case got national and international attention indicates notability. He was also listed in another national newspaper's "Top 5 male social media celebrities of 2017" and his following has grown substantially since then. This is what I found in English coverage; I did not even look at Urdu coverage, of which there is surely much more.
Chagropango (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 Tin Huey. (non-admin closure) Tow (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

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

I don't think the album itself meets notability criteria from WP:NALBUM. While the sources in the article might cover the band or artists themselves, there is minimal significant coverage for the album itself. Tow (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Tow, I think so, although I confess that I don't have the entirety of AfD policy committed to memory. I wouldn't have challenged your mere redirect, as that retains the edit history. Caro7200 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 04:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Dean Finch (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)

Doesn't pass WP:NBIO. All sources are either of dubious intellectual independence, do not provide in-depth biographical coverage, or both. Ovinus (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Editors should not be nominating articles for deletion unless they are familiar with WP:BEFORE, and make a modicum of effort to see what might not be in the article. The most cursory search for "Dean Finch Persimmon" shows several quality sources, as does "Dean Finch National Express". He is the CEO of a FTSE100 company and was the CEO of a FTSE250 one for ten years. Such people are almost always notable. Edwardx (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    • @Edwardx: I did conduct a BEFORE search, and could not find reliable articles which are both intellectually independent (e.g., by not being mostly based on interviews) and provide in-depth biographical (i.e., not focused on the company) coverage, as required for notability. If you could give some convincing examples of that, I will withdraw this nomination. As to "such people are almost always notable", notability is not inherited and I'm not sure I agree. Ovinus (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete this. Notability is not indicated. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 Tipperary Senior Football Championship (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)

2022 Tipperary Senior Football Championship

Article about a future Gaelic football tournament that is too soon and does not satisfy event notability guidelines. The one reference is not about the upcoming competition but about the 2021 championship match. There is no significant coverage because there is no documented coverage, which is in turn because the event is in the future.

An article was created in article space and moved to draft space. A stub was then created again in article space. An unregistered editor then copy-pasted the schedule from the draft to the article, which would cause attribution problems if the article were worth keeping, but it is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Tournament is starting in the next day or so, reference to fixtures now added.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 21:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

11 July 2022 shelling of Kharkiv (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 decreasing level of this horrific attack but I think it does not pass WP:NOTNEWS and should be redirected to Battle of Kharkiv (2022) as on Ukrainian Knowledge (XXG) Renvoy (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The battle of Kharkiv ended in May so that wouldn't be too appropriate an article. Maybe a new article like List of attacks on Kharkiv after the Battle of Kharkiv (2022) or Aftermath of the Battle of Kharkiv (2022)/Aftermath of the Northeastern Ukraine offensive? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider possibility of merging content with another article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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. The arguments to delete are substantially stronger here. As multiple users observe, we need reliable sources discussing the cuisine of Chittagong as a whole, not just individual dishes from Chittagong; that latter form of content may still be encyclopedic, but only in articles about said dishes. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Chittagonian cuisine (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)

Pretty much textbook WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, take your pick. Sources clubbed together to make an impressive looking list of references where none of them actually discuss in any meaningful way the existence of a unique and differentiated cuisine of Chittagong. If you're going to argue the existence of a cuisine to one city in the subcontinent, I'd suggest maybe avoiding the claim of biryani and chickpeas as uniquely famous and traditional... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep All curries might seem the same, but that is not the case. The cuisine of Chittagong is different in many ways from the rest of Bangladesh and similar in others. Take, for example, Cuisine of Hawaii similar to other states but different. English sources do discuss it; take Mezban, Coastal cuisines of Bangladesh, A mouthful of Chittagong, Bamboo shoot recipes from the Chittagong Hill Tracts and 3-day food festival kicks off in Ctg. The article is in pretty bad shape, but it can be improved. There is scope for expansion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment This is eerily similar to the Sylheti cuisine article, which also seems to just list popular dishes in Sylhet and the impact that people from Sylhet have had in the food industry. I think both articles should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Liz 23:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

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

BLP is grossly under-sourced, and what citation there is is largely derived from primary interviews or works. No single clear case for notability is evident. It is claimed that she was a professor at Pennsylvania, but this is unsourced and it is unclear if this was a fully tenured position. Her sociological work has only been cited in local media, and it is also unclear if her body of poetry is influential. Added to which which is the concern raised in September 2020 that a major contributor may have had a close connection with its subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a crystal clear case of unnotable person with an exaggerate unsourced self-promotion. Tzahy (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, I see this as "No consensus" but will relist this discussion one week to see if a more conclusive outcome is possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 Kylie Minogue products#Books. Liz 21:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

A search of sources here, reveals no WP:SIGCOV or mentions per WP:GNG. Not notable or significant. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 speedily deleted (non-admin closure). Mangoe (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Henrybuilt (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)

Henrybuilt

Article on design company that is written like an advertisement, but Knowledge (XXG) is not for advertisements. Naïve Google search shows that the company exists, and that the company advertises online, and finds plenty of non-independent coverage. However, the article does not provide evidence of independent secondary significant coverage. The article has been reference-bombed, so that a check of the references for whether they are independent, secondary, and significant is not feasible. The author, who has not responded to a request to declare any conflict of interest, seems to have dumped this into article space to ask Knowledge (XXG) to find the needle of independent significant coverage in the haystack of advertising. This article does not satisfy corporate notability, and it isn't our responsibility to rewrite it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Kelah Kay (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)

Didn't pass at AfC and was manually moved to mainspace by it's creator. Don't see how it passes WP:NMUSIC or WP:ANYBIO. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Emski (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)

It was only fairly recently created, but I'd already moved it to draftspace and it was recreated, and the draft version has already been declined at AfC. Don't see how it meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSIC. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Life 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)

There is no significant news coverage on this school at any time in its history aside from it suing the city to re-open during COVID shutdowns. A search online shows no other relevant secondary source coverage. There are no secondary sources in the article for the information it contains. PDXBart (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you find the sources the nominator was talking about? It seems that this is enough to pass GNG. There is also sports coverage, e.g. but you're right - it's hard to know what to search for. StAnselm (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@StAnselm: I am not able to access the first two links you provide due to geographical limitations. The latter two just mention some minor sports achievement in passing, among many other schools and do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. The fact there seems to be a number of schools across the states with this name makes me think that the primary article title should not just be about one of them alone, but either all collectively or none at all. Bungle 06:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, how about these? StAnselm (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This is run-of-the-mill news coverage and not even exclusively about the institution in question, just that they were among a number of schools at the time wanting to reopen. Covid had a significant affect on many sectors, education one of them, and those refs do not in any way assert notability. Bungle 08:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete References do not point to notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - just MILL coverage in media outside of the 1E COVID bit. And Bungle, there's no relationship between the various schools bearing this name across the country except they offer Christian education. 174.212.227.158 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    I did not suggest there was any relationship or connection between them, only questioning why this particular one should have an article over the others (and that it wasn't the only one I could see by this or a similar name). Fundamentally though, this institution does not appear notable enough for an article, which is the matter being considered. Bungle 17:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just because something exists doesn't mean it needs a WP article. Businesses/private schools/etc can advertise themselves on their own sites. Does not meet GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete (unless greatly improved). The article appears to be entirely concerned with a failed court case, ratgher than about the school itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Article does not show notability for this school. NMasiha (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
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 21:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

John Derkach (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)

Finding nothing on google but interviews. Can't get to any of these sources except Companies House, which only proves he exists, and three of the sources are from the same publication. None of the references include title, byline...why? Valereee (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ben Zhou (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 written by SPA, who also contested a PROD on it. This is the version with the REFBOMBing cut down a bit. The RSes are articles about Bybit, and only mention Zhou himself in passing. Sources found in a WP:BEFORE about Zhou himself are largely self-sourced and promotional material, even in the crypto press. It's not clear Bybit passes WP:CORP either, or I'd suggest redirecting it there. As is, this should be deleted as apparent advertising - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was Withdrawn Probably should have done that in the first place rather than filing an AfD. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

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

This is a directory listing, not an encyclopedia article. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

History of rugby union matches between Canada and Japan (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)

Similar to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/History of rugby union matches between Japan and the United States this article fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NRIVALRY and most importantly WP:GNG. We've deleted a large number of similar articles in the past where no clear GNG passing rivalry can be shown. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 Church Historian and Recorder. There is rough consensus that the sources we currently have are not quite enough for a standalone article. Sandstein 08:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

LeGrand R. Curtis 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)

Non-notable individual associated with the LDS Church. A WP:BEFORE brings up only WP:ROUTINE passing mentions, which seems to be what the majority of the sources are - indirect mentions of Curtis, but not actually about him and is very WP:REFBOMB-like. Therefore, these sources are lacking WP:SIGCOV for a BLP. Short bios by the Church don't really advance notability either. Overall, fails WP:GNG. This article was previously deleted in 2018 and many of the concerns then echo concerns now. StickyWicket (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I use Deseret News often for music articles and think it's fine. KSL? Not sure. Neither are wholly independent. The biggest problem is that the cited sources don't offer significant and substantial information about Curtis himself; I also didn't find much in ProQuest (A lot of "Curtis returned from Liberia..." stuff). There's nothing wrong with being merely accomplished rather than notable in the encyclopedic sense... I'm an "inclusionist" (shudder), so always happy if someone can find better coverage. Caro7200 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Multiple sources make credible claims of significance, such as detailing his history within the church and various high-level positions that he has held. ––FormalDude talk 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. No substantive independent sourcing. The Deseret News is owned by the Mormon Church (through holding companies) and is obviously not an independent s source about church officials. Other coverage simply reports that he issued press releases for the church, saying little or nothing about the subject himself. Just a flack with a grandiose title -- Vivian 166.149.176.27 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, that doesn't appear to be exactly the case--or this is out of date. Note that I argued for a redirect, not a delete, but another look at sources, both cited and not, don't add up to enough for me. Again, happy to review secondary sources that are actually about Curtis. Caro7200 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
At over 5 years since the most recent discussion, it is stale, and I believe there's at least rough consensus that it is independent. ––FormalDude talk 01:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Church Historian and Recorder. Even if we accept for sake of argument that the Deseret News is editorially independent of the LDS Church, the sources still don't add up to notability under the GNG/WP:BASIC. I've reviewed the sources cited in the article as well as others, and although they contain quotes from Curtis about various issues, they don't discuss him in the depth needed to qualify as sigcov. There isn't much more here than the occasional "Elder Curtis said", and that is neither independent of Curtis nor coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". I agree that a redirect to the Church Historian and Recorder article, where he's listed, is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The institution (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)

Main body of the article is entirely self-sourced. Google search turns up nothing independent. Fails WP:NMUSIC Alyo (chat·edits) 16:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources found, those 1960's interwebs haven't been digitized yet... Local garage band, hardly notable even these days. Oaktree b (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment -- article creator left this comment on his talk page, which I'll link as his keep !vote. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    he provided links to TV shows he says he was on, we can't verify it happened. I still don't consider it coverage of the band, at best, it confirms the tv show happened. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Note that the article's title is capitalized incorrectly, to get around this. If it is kept, the title should be moved to The Institution (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have perused the talk page discussion in which the article's creator, Tonytt, is absolutely working in good faith and wants to present valid info on this band. Tonytt has the stance of a historian, tracking down far-flung and obscure snippets of information to compile a story of an early band in which several interesting people got started. Unfortunately, Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia in which people/things must qualify for inclusion, and while some members of The Institution may qualify for things they did later, the band itself does not. They were purely local with little apparent influence at the time, and even the hardcopy books mentioned at Tonytt's talk page are about other things like TV shows on which the band briefly appeared. This is all a fascinating historical exercise, which can spruce up fansites and maybe even a feature magazine article somewhere, but it is not appropriate for Knowledge (XXG). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Take a look at the Steel Mill entry. For much of their early existence there is very little solid sourcing, instead mostly there are fan sites such as brucebase, dead entries, tribute sites like Garry's Corner, mentions from an autobiography (an excellent one) by Bruce Springsteen who was a member of Steel Mill, making the reference self-sourced. To me, that is not crucial. What is most important about Steel Mill is the fact the several of its members went on to considerable success, including Bruce, Steve Van Zandt, Danny Federici, and that they opened for several well-known groups (which is apparently poorly sourced in the Steel Mill wikipedia entry), not that they were a significant or well-known band at the time, though there was a nice review of one performance in a local paper, as there were short, complimentary words in a letter in a local paper for The Institution. (Note that Steel Mill also played at a Thanksgiving event in 1970 with The Institution, mentioned on their tribute site in a flyer, and Steel Mill's presence on a fan chronology site.)
    I strongly believe that there should be a Knowledge (XXG) entry for Steel Mill, to show how Bruce and the others got started, no matter how obscure these early groups were. They are an important part of rock history, as is the usually obscure role they played as an opening act. I also believe that The Institution played a similar, but less prominent role, giving a start to people like Joey Kramer, Rickie Rackin, J. Howard Duff, and Philip Rubin. I am fond of outsiders and underdogs, but feel that The Institution was more than this, playing a significant role in the rough and tumble, and usually obscure, early days of garage bands in New Jersey, opening for well known groups, appearing on important television shows like Clay Cole's and Zacherly's, and nurturing key individuals, a couple of whom went on to considerably more prominence than most who were part of this scene. At the same time, I understand that Knowledge (XXG) has its rules and standards. I believe that in this instance, the difficulty of documentation from this era (for Steel Mill, The Institution, and many others bands), and the web of connections and verifiability of key individuals who were shaped by playing in this band, should be both important and mitigating factors when considering the deletion of this entry.
    Thanks again for your patience in putting up with listening to my point of view on this. I think that is an important entry, if not a standard one, and hope that it will not be deleted from Knowledge (XXG). It was an important part of this early history (at least in New Jersey and clubs in NYC) and will, unfortunately, disappear from history without such an entry on Knowledge (XXG). I first ran across modern interest in the band around 2015 on a website called 60srockband.com. That site is now gone. Many of the links and sites on the Steel Mill site are gone. This history is disappearing. Knowledge (XXG) can, and should, help save it. Tonytt (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF, as the weaknesses of the Steel Mill article are not relevant for our current discussion about whether The Institution is notable. If the Steel Mill article needs improvement, or even if it deserves to be deleted, that can be handled as a separate matter by Knowledge (XXG)'s volunteers. Once again, I think you are doing very interesting historical research, but you're putting it in an inappropriate forum. There is surely an interested readership for what you have found on The Institution, so consider submitting to NJ history publications or the like. Best regards, ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I won't get involved in the question of whether the article should be retained or deleted. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I applaud Tonytt for his interest, passion, and diligence--he should definitely write a book. I think that some of the material in this article, provided reliable sources can be found, could be used as background info. in articles about some of the later well-known acts whose members played in the Institution. And, if some of the Institution's recordings could find official release, that would be very helpful for establishing notability down the road. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Pierre-Justin Delort (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)

Notability not established for either GNG or Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed Bastun 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

André Darré (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)

Notability not established for either GNG or Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed Bastun 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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. I see a weak consensus that he has enough sources to scrape by; the presence of an article in a print encyclopedia is particularly significant. However, merging or redirecting may still be discussed on talk pages. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Francois Anglade (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)

Notability not established for either GNG or Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed Bastun 16:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Louis-Gilles Delahogue (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)

Notability not established for either GNG or Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed. Bastun 16:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

V. K. Garg (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)

Among his most prominent work listed in the article is this it has only 5 citations in 7 years. Fails WP:NPROF KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 result. Given how radically the article has changed during this AfD, many of the comments are not applicable any more, and as such there is no valid result to be obtained here (not even a "no consensus"; the discussion is simply irrelevant to determining the notability of the article as it stands). I suspect Chinese military exercises are notable, but if anyone disagrees, a new AfD will be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

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

A non-notable non-event. Entirely WP:SYNTH/WP:OR; the article takes from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that none of the sources say. No sources specifically describing this hypothetical exist. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Noting that the article now is practically an entirely new article, with a complete topical shift to boot. This has got to be one of the worst, most chaotic and nonsensical AfDs I've ever been a part of. Curbon7 (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

*Delete per WP: ROUTINE, WP:OR HurricaneEdgar 22:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

In a NOTABLE and widely reported actual EVENT in 2021, multiple PRC military planes entered the ROC's ADIZ. Therefore I have expanded the scope of the article accordingly, and we should ignore the opinions of editors ignorant of this history or unwilling to account for it. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem with the article was not lack of notability. The problem was it was biased toward WP:Recentism and Anglo-Americanism. This can be corrected. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The Republic of China's ADIZ is way bigger than its sovereign airspace, and some parts of it are situated over mainland China. Chinese "intrusions" in Taiwan's ADIZ are routine, and often take place several times a week. There have been hundreds of them, if not thousands, in the past years, and this did not start in 2021. While this ongoing series of ADIZ "violations" may be notable, related copy-pasted additions in the article really don't show that these sparked any kind of crisis. Interestingly, even though Chinese incursions in Taiwan's ADIZ are frequently reported even in mainstream media, these almost always fail to explain what an ADIZ actually is (i.e. not necessarily sovereign national airspace). Lastly, please keep it down with the caps and personal attacks. Thanks in advance. BilletsMauves 20:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
As pointed by other comments there are no references to this event as the "fourth crisis", thus modifications would be required or a complete deletion as the final solution. PenangLion (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with points that there are almost no notable sources referring to it as the Fourth Crisis. I think a new article can be proposed with a different name or (probably more sensibly) discussion of the military drills can be added to the article about Pelosi's visit. Dhawk790 (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete As HurricaneEdgar pointed out, this is straight up original research. There is no "Fourth Crisis" because of Pelosi's visit. No one is calling it that. We already have Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit. 121.179.189.157 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
While you are not required to give a reason, if I may ask, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep this article? Elijahandskip (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah ok. Did not know that, so thanks for clarifying that. I had just seen the move to mainspace then AfD, but yeah, you have nothing to do with the creation of this article. I just altered my comment because of what you said. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge into 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan. A redirect may be warranted at some point, for now though it feels like the title of this subject borders on WP:OR given the NOTNEWS/CRYSTAL status. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously is a crises when one nation starts lobbing military missiles and projectiles into another's waters. Highly notable, with much well sourced news coverage. The crises does not require a lot of dead and injured people to be a crises. N2e (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Note that even on Chinese Knowledge (XXG) there is an article referring to the 2022 strait crisis, discussing whether it can be called the "fourth crisis" or "2022 crisis" is one thing, but wanting to deny that there is currently a crisis is crazy. LLs (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep / Merge This article has improved a lot since it was first published and deletion is no longer a reasonable course of action, but I could see reorganizing it. Jsnider3 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article was moved to 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan. I agree that it is WP:TOOSOON and that few sources call this crisis the "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis". The article needs cleanup, but I am against deleting all the work done so far, so I propose to draftify the article under the current name. P1221 (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    If we're now discussing on the basis of the new article name, shall we move the title of this AfD page to the new article title then? NoNews! 07:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    The article with the new title may be keepable, but the OR redirect Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis should be deleted or possibly retargeted. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    I think this discussion should be closed and a new one opened if necessary. Many of the oppose arguments no longer apply after with the new title. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    There's no need, the closing administrator will take the reasons for the !votes into account rather than the number of them. DatGuyContribs 13:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • IMPORTANT NOTE: — The article was moved to 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan by Txkk. Any !votes (Keep, delete, merge, or redirect) that !voted based on a “Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis” need to re-!vote, since their vote no longer applies due to the renaming move. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    The classic scummy page move during AfD. Re-votes are not necessary. If someone wants to change their rationale, they can strike. Curbon7 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Similar to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Will Smith assault of Chris Rock at the Oscars HurricaneEdgar 13:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Re-vote. Original reasoning doesn't apply after move. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC); edit: Strong keep per Mhawk10 below. Article might need work, but the solution is working on it, not deleting it. It is notable enough and with enough sources to keep it. AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    @AdrianHObradors - Please indicate your original vote as rescinded, as I've done for my own. Thanks. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete (Modify) (vote rescinded, re-vote listed lower down the page) - The information in this article is not necessarily non-notable in and of itself, but the conclusions that editors originally came to when formulating the nascent title "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" were 100% original research. The first three Taiwan Strait crises are well recorded and researched, in large part due to having occurred a long time ago. Overall, there was no way that this article could stand with its former title. With its current title, it's a bit more acceptable, although there are still various issues with the actual content that's inside of the article. For example, why is Syria's opinion on the altercation so important, aside from simply being a puppet of Russia? (as we can see from Syria's recognition of the Russian breakaway republics in the Donbas). The only relevant players should be other East Asian nations and various world powers (either superpower, great power, or middle power). A third world country like Syria that is located far away from the conflict zone has no weight in this conversation, especially since there are only something like six countries' opinions listed at the moment. On the other hand, North Korea's opinion is obviously acceptable given how relevant they are to Taiwan (i.e. historical relations, geographic proximity, etc.). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Well, I've gone ahead and removed Syria from the "international response" section of the article for the reasons that I outlined above. The source that was used to support Syria's position was state media. In my opinion, it is not Knowledge (XXG)'s job to literally just spread propaganda with an asterisk* (*this is state media). If it's state media and it's coming from some random third world country, then it probably has no genuine relevance to the situation at hand. Syria trying to be relevant doesn't mean we have to facilitate their agenda. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Jargo Nautilus:Huh? Why would you arbitrarily consider another government's stance on this matter as "irrelevant"? Because they're "third world"? Because they support the bigger country? This is a globally significant event so any government's stance would be notable, it's not the role of Knowledge (XXG) to hide or pre-filter this kind of voices (see WP:DUE), if it is by state media then label it so; most government statements and stances will be issued by state media anyway. You can separate views of countries into categories such as "regional"/"non-regional" or "support"/"neutral"/"oppose" etc and let the reader decide what to do with the information. NoNews! 15:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    I disagree with the notion that this is a globally significant event. That's original research. Indeed, at the moment, I would consider this event to be only regionally significant. And, going by that definition, Syria isn't located in the region, nor is Syria really a world player in geopolitics, at least nowhere comparable to countries like France, the United States, or even nearby (to Syria) Israel. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Think about it this way. If we were to go by your definition of "globally significant event", we would have to list the opinions of around 200 different countries in order to be truly fair. Do you honestly think we need that many opinions in this article? Just a few opinions from the most important players would suffice. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    P.S. When you say "the bigger country", I presume you mean China. But I have to disagree with that notion, because this incident isn't a two-way dispute. Instead, it's a three-way dispute between China, Taiwan, and the United States. And, while China is definitely a lot bigger than Taiwan, it's not really all that much bigger than the United States. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest merging this with 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, though I'm not sure whether the content should be moved there or here. Either way, the original title wasn't good but the current one is ok. ansh.666 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Not a bad idea. That article has issues of its own. Both of these articles are Frankenstein's monsters at the moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NEVENT states that events are very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. This is an international incident affecting the national security situations of China, Taiwan, and Japan. Reuters believes that this event is likely to have broad impact in Japan, as it serves to bolster public support for a military build-up aimed at defence, which is certainly something that is of international importance. It's also drawn response from ASEAN, which bolsters the fact that these drills are internationally significant. These drills have also resulted in some actions that are extremely rare, such as Chinese fighters and naval vessels crossing the median line between China and Taiwan, while missiles flew over the island. There were also significant disruptions in international shipping and air travel caused by the drills. Additionally, these drills have also been covered by a broad swath of reliable sources in-depth, including CNN, Al Jazeera, The Wall Street Journal, AP, Axios, Politico EU, AFP (via NDTV), The New York Times, RFA, VoA, Taipei Times, The Independent, India dot com, BBC News, NHK, etc.
    The concerns relating to the old title of the page (Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis) seem to have been resolved by the page move to a much better title (2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan), so any sort of deletion rationale based on the title alone should be WP:DISCARDed. And, while this was done ostensibly in response to Speaker Pelosi's visit to the island, I think that the drills can be covered better in a standalone page than in a section on the page on Pelosi's visit. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Also, I will note that WP:DEL-CONTENT states that f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. We're in a situation where editing has changed the page from a synth/or title and presentation of events into one where the coverage is largely of the event and it's devoid of any mention of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" as of this revision, so it does look like editing actually can improve the page from here on out. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan I'm just not seeing any reliable sources which actually say that a Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis exists, thats the bare minimum and we don't have it. WP:RS universally frame this as a response to Pelosi's visit not a stand-alone event. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    It should be noted that the article in its current form does not include the words "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" even once. M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Be that as it may the title has been justified by subsequent coverage, the Center for Strategic and International Studies for example is now calling it the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. Based on the shift in coverage I'm changing my vote to keep and restore to its original name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep/Modify per Ⓜ️hawk10. Imperator Storm (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep -- now that the article has been renamed to something more appropriate. -- Rockstone 20:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. Chance it could become notable later but not now. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Vladimir.copic, how do SYNTH and CRYSTAL apply here? AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Probably more of a WP:TOOSOON than CRYSTAL but the SYNTH is fairly clear. Most of the sources and article is about Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit or prior events with no mention of the August military exercises - including nearly all the sources in the Escalation of tensions and International response sections. From a quick count a third of all sources are from before 2 August and even more are not about the military exercises. I'd happily support a merge with Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit of which this article is a WP:POVFORK. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Vladimir.copic: Do you believe that the fifteen sources that I listed in my comment above fail to significantly cover the topic of the August military exercises? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge with the article on Pelosi's Taiwan Visit. The events in this article are not notable enough at the moment to have its own wikipedia article. The conflict may warrant their own article if things escalate but not now. Evercool1 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge/Keep the information here is encyclopedia worthy for it's notability and relevance. Perhaps for now it could be merged until it can be looked at in retrospect RFZYNSPY 00:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The GNG has been far and away surpassed here, I don't see the issues with SYNTH. "Fourth Taiwan Strait crisis" was not an appropriate title, but since the page has been moved that vacates all the reasonable SYNTH and poor sourcing concerns. I also oppose a merge to 2022 US Congressional Delegation visit to Taiwan, since that article is already very bloated and doesn't need the detailed day-by-day military analysis that is bound to spring up here. The two are also separate events with separate coverage; the military exercises may have been caused by Pelosi's visit, but she's already long gone. Maybe (and this part is TOOSOON) if it is determined by RSes at some point in the future that this is a "Fourth Taiwan Strait crisis", then all the different parts can be merged into such an article, but until then I see such merges as SYNTH and TOOSOON. Toadspike (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems like WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps merge into another article as suggested. Qiushufang (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Qiushufang I don't understand these arguments. Toosoon and crystal? How? AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    The Crystal element plays in here because news outlets are describing this altercation as a "potential crisis" rather than as a full-fledged fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. With that being said, the info is definitely notable enough to remain as a standalone article, but we just have to be very careful about how we classify the information until further developments are made in the real world. Personally, I'm not even sure that I agree with the way that this article seems to almost be presented as a direct military conflict (like a skirmish or a battle). So far, no actual fighting has taken place. It's all "sabre-rattling" at the moment, albeit with a blockade and military exercises by China against Taiwan thrown in. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Jargo Nautilus, not once in the whole article since the move is "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" used. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, but they still present the altercation as a military conflict with that info-box. This is a detail that I disagree with since I don't think the altercation qualifies as a military conflict at the moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. No Merge. The topic is notable enough to have its own article. The Pelosi visit is notable enough on its own to also have it's own article. Both articles are related and will have wikilink in each other. EyeTruth (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge/Keep Keep it and merged it with the page we got now. As there is some news outlets that starts to coin it as crisis.
The Economist: https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/08/03/nancy-pelosi-has-left-taiwan-the-real-crisis-may-be-just-beginning (Crisis)
NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1115234980/what-3-past-taiwan-strait-crises-can-teach-us-about-u-s-china-tensions-today (Crisis)
Hankyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1053402.html (Crisis)
Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-trip-risks-sparking-fourth-taiwan-strait-crisis-us-china-1730063 (Crisis)
As of August 6th 2022, these four news outlets has coin the recent event as crisis. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the articles that you linked seem to be describing the altercation as a "potential crisis" rather than a definitive fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I know, but considering people have already been linking this event with how the Ukraine-Russia conflict precipitated, someone had to say it. It's implied. The article is notable simply because it is an ongoing, important event. The article should not be deleted. 203.166.241.41 (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted G11 as most of the text is a copy of https://theprideoflondon.com/2018/02/19/chelsea-barcelona-true-european-rivalry/. It should be noted for future reference, however, that consensus was that the subject is non-notable anyway. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C. - F.C. Barcelona rivalry (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 real sources to show that this is a lasting and meaningful rivalry rather than a couple of teams who have played each other recently. Lots of sources are just stats or routine coverage of individual matches. Spike 'em (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sistorian (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
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 procedural close. Article has been speedy deleted by Jimfbleak under G4, and 11. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. AmirŞah 14:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom, no !votes other than to keep. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Naresh Dalal (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)

Professor with expertise in the paramagnetism subject, but not well-known enough to be included on Knowledge (XXG). PlayOboe (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Now I'm reading the policy pertaining to professors WP:PROF. I hereby withdraw my nomination. PlayOboe (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
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 Narnia (world)#Cosmology. The existence of sources about a subtopic of a well-defined larger topic is necessary, but not sufficient, for the existence of a standalone article; there also needs to be a valid reason for keeping the material separate. No such rationale has been provided here. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wood between the Worlds (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 does not meet the WP:GNG as there isn't significant coverage that is more than a trivial mention. There is a trivial mention connecting this to the novel The Wood Beyond the World, but the rest of this is entirely WP:OR. Jontesta (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted following discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2022 July 26.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Merge to Narnia (world)#Cosmology. Even if the subject is technically notable, notability is a necessary but not sufficient criterium for inclusion. Another consideration is editorial in nature: it is unhelpful to readers and invites the addition of excessive detail to cover a (relatively minor) element of a (relatively unimportant) fictional work in its own article. Such content is better presented in the context of an article about the work. Sandstein 13:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep As an AfD outcome. While merging is reasonable, independent notability has been demonstrated so any merger should be a merge discussion, rather than an enforced AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator the point of Knowledge (XXG) is to build WP:CONSENSUS. Considering that every !vote here expressed that a merge is a reasonable outcome as per WP:NOPAGE, I am willing to join the WP:CONSENSUS to resolve this issue.
As a tangent, Knowledge (XXG) is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. ... A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." I don't think this AFD was made in error, and merger is a valid outcome given that this topic isn't notable separate from existing articles. But even that aside, it's WP:DISRUPTIVE to acknowledge a consensus around a reasonable solution, and still find some misinterpretation of procedure in order to prolong a dispute. Jontesta (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
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 Robyn discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 11:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Not a notable release, and lacks any source since it’s been created. Sricsi (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete per criterion A7, lacking any credible indication of importance. XOR'easter (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Motzoid India (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)

Tried to PROD but noticed that there is an old AfD so is ineligible for soft deletion. Rationale still applies Topic appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG based on what I can find.

Possibly WP:TOOSOON as company was founded in 2021. Spiderone 09:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Liz 21:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Incap (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)

It was deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Incap and reuploaded again. I didn't see it when first edited it a few weeks ago. Also I found it was declined at AfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Incap_Corporation and it's still in draft Morpho achilles (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment I see the article has a live articles in Finnish and French wp versions. So we are talking about deleting the English translation. Most of the discussion above seems to relate to people not having access or maybe not being able to read the content. Seems to me we should hold off on delete and maybe put the Finish version to AFD first, and see if it passes (Finnish people and/or people that can read the language will be much more qualified to comment). If it passes Finnish AFD, then we know that we are more dealing with a translation issue and a tag for the English article would be more suitable. Let's not get too wrapped us in thinking the EN wikipedia is the 'correct' one, and maybe defer to the other languages first. For example I have seen EN versions of a CN article to be very weak, while the CN article is robust and fully built out. The Finnish article has 38 sources (and I cant read a single one of them), but some might be decent and pass NCORP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Well in Finnish Knowledge (XXG) "stock listed companies are usually notable" and as there is so much media attention for this company there's no proper reason to start an AFD there. The article was created in 2015.Jjanhone (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have perfect visibility to all the paywalled sources, but the coverage seems to be either standard announcements (e.g. based on the headline) or PR pieces (e.g. ). I'd greatly appreciate if those proposing to keep would do something along the lines of WP:THREE, listing what they believe to be the 3-4 best sources together with descriptions of their length, depth and how independent they appear. Currently, I'm leaning delete. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Cheers Ljleppan! Am I free to choose the best sources or should I prefer the ones you have access to? If so, which are those? If I choose the best ones, can you point me an example about how to describe them (lenght, depth and independence)?Jjanhone (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Chooosing the best sources might be difficult if I dont know the criteria. E.g. you said that this is "PR content" while I saw it as a journalist interviewing a CEO, making it original content, not just a press release puff. As it's not behind a paywall I invite others to judge it too. Jjanhone (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, just to be clear. If the journalist simply repeats what the CEO said without adding any "Independent Content" (that is the journalist did not add *substantial* and *in-depth* opinion/commentary/fact checking/analysis) then that fails ORGIND. Sure, it might make it "original content" (in that those precise sequence of words may never have appeared in that particular order in the past) but unique is not the same as *independent*. Sorry for the emphasis, just trying to explain so that you should be able to understand, yourself, what "Independent Content" is. Basically, if it is information that was provided by the company (e.g. financials, PR, website, interview, quotes, etc) we exclude that content (for the purposes of establishing notability - that content can of course be used to support facts, etc, within the article). HighKing 13:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Paywalled is fine, if you give a good description of what the article is about, the tone, depth etc. W/r/t the Ilta-Sanomat piece, the content is wholly uncritical, and seems like it would be sourced solely from what a company rep would tell a journalist. Basically, regurgitating a bunch of press releases with a few quotes from the CEO thrown in. Ljleppan (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I tried to find analysis of Incap (searching for Incap + analysis). Here's what I found. Jjanhone (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Arvopaperi 5th May 2022: Incap on ylisuorittunut epäsuositulla toimialalla komeasti – Asiakaspuoleen sisältyy kuitenkin sitova riski (Incap has outperformed handsomely in an unpopular industry - However, there is a binding risk on the client side). Lenght about 2,600 chars, mentions about Incap's biggest customer and how it has evolved. No sources mentioned, but the magazine is concentrated on stock companies. Contains critic.
A quote: "Incap's growth story comes with its own risks. Victron Energy, the company's largest customer, accounted for as much as 61% of its turnover last year. ... Although Incap's position as a subcontractor may be considered disadvantageous, customers do not easily change contract manufacturers. Incap's profitability comes from lower costs than its competitors."
  • Talouselämä 4th May 2007. Nyt kävi kyyti kylmäksi (Now the ride got cold). It's a review of the market, aka Electronics subcontractors in Finland in 2006: Elcoteq, Perlos, Scanfil, Elektrobit, Aspocomp, Incap, Cencorp. Lenght of the article: about 7,400 chars. 8 mentions for name Incap and the part telling about the company is about 1,000 chars.
A quote is telling the journalist is having own thoughts about what Incap should do - co-operate with another company: "In recent years, Incap has made good progress. Last year, it was the only decent performer in the analysis set. Unlike most companies in the group, Incap is not Nokia-dependent, but has a diverse customer base." "Together, Scanfil and Incap could be a strong player in the small series production of demanding industrial electronics. Both have already downsized in Finland and Scanfil in Belgium." "Scanfil is undergoing a generational change. There are signs of it in Incap too."
  • Kauppalehti 16 Sep 2019 Törkeästi noussut Incap jatkaa nousurallia? – Tavoitehintaa nostaneet analyytikot: "Arvostus ei täysin huomioi ketterää toimintamallia" (Will Incap, which has risen sharply, continue its upward rally? – Analysts who raised the target price: "The valuation does not fully take into account the agile operating model"). Lenght: about 3,500 chars. Two analytics from Inderes commenting the company.
A quote from the analysts: ""In our view, the current valuation of Incap does not fully reflect the competitive advantage and strong operational performance created by the company's lean and agile operating model." The analysts also say the relative discount to the share price remains "unjustifiably large"."
A quote tells that the writer has opinions: "Compared to other companies in the hot sector, Incap's share price has been sleepy, except for the February technopeak. Investors' reticence is explained by the mixed-use retailer's reputation and declining earnings. Incap's focus on capital goods has not helped either." "Grittiness flourishes in the CEO's review..." "Not surprisingly, the Incap board decided in early May to relieve Frey of his duties."
  • Tekniikka & Talous 19 Feb 2010 Intian ihme Incapin tapaan (Indian wonder like Incap). Lenght: 5,500 chars. Summarizes the history and tells e.g. about companies challenges.
A quote, interviewing Incap marketing manager Munipalli in India tells about the problems: "India is a land of opportunity, but there are plenty of problems too. Munipalli simplifies the dilemmas of the environment: "There are too many of us Indians, the infrastructure is all over the place and corruption is a bad problem."" Earlier in the article: "The biggest challenge is building the brand. The company is not a big player like Flextronics or Elcoteq, nor is it a small player focused on prototyping. Local customers need to be convinced of the quality of the service." Part of the history chapter, cannot say if this was taken from the website back in 2010 but I doubt: "The industry's transformation is illustrated by the multi-generational history of the trade union at Incap's now-closed Vuokatti plant. In December 1978, the people of the Sotkamo plant of the state-owned cathode-ray tube factory Valco organised themselves as electronics workers. After the fall of Valco, the activities continued at Finn-Valco, then at Valmet and, since 1983, at Elektrostep. The latter was merged into Incap Electronics in 1996. After the restructuring, what remained of the companies in many sectors in 1997 was Incap Electronics, a contract manufacturer of electronics, and Incap Furniture, a contract manufacturer of furniture. The parent company was listed on the stock exchange. Furniture manufacturing went its own way in 2002. A year ago, its entire staff was made redundant after the main shareholder Ikea stopped taking orders."
  • I've posted above what I hope will assist you in determining whether sources contain "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND) or not, since you appeared to be under the impression that a report on an interview provided by the CEO was "original content" and therefore OK for establishing notability. With that in mind, the descriptions you provide of various articles above fails to identify whether or not those articles contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. For example, is the summary of the company history generic (e.g. same as website as other articles)? What exactly is the "critical tone" - does it have critical analysis/opinion that is in-depth? Where was the information on the company challenges sourced from (e.g. financial news? announcements?). These are the details that are required to satisfy other editors that the sources meet NCORP. HighKing 13:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

*Keep: Less news coverage, but notable company. We occasionally need to think outside the box. NASDAQ-listed PCB assembly company. Even though I can see stated COI, I checked each content in good faith and found noteworthy.PlayOboe (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no remaining delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Jim Ankan Deka (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 reliable sources available to establish notability. Another singer who only made a few solo or duet recordings. Possible COI (someone wrote the articles for his whole family). Need proper investigation by experienced editors. PlayOboe (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment He composed a song about the newsworthy 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder. He is not notable for Knowledge (XXG) because of that.PlayOboe (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:BASIC notability appears to be supported because multiple independent and reliable sources offer secondary coverage over time about a variety of aspects of his career, and when combined, demonstrate significant coverage. Some sources are also available at the Internet Archive, e.g. Where folk & Western tunes merge (The Telegraph 2012). Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
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 Thomas Bergersen discography#Humanity. Article can be restored in the near future once the album series or any of the albums in that series has garnered enough coverage. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 08:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Humanity (album series) (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 impressive looking article about a significant work of seven albums created around the theme of humanity. It's when we get to sourcing that the problems appear - the composer's website, Facebook, a blog, an enthusiast-run upload site and Apple Music. Search gets us nothing more than evidence that this WP article has already promulgated other Wikis/sites in the short time since it became searchable. It therefore fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - Nominator is right. Article lack reliable source and the fact album has been charted on Billboard doesn’t mean it supposed to be on main space --Gabriel 09:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "the fact album has been charted on Billboard doesn’t mean it supposed to be on main space" is an argument against WP:NALBUM#2, rather than this specific album, which states a recording can be notable when charting on a country's music chart, i.e. Billboard. – TurboGUY (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no remaining delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Bhabananda Deka (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)

Blatantly promotional article! There are numerous citations provided, yet none of the contents are found in source articles (very interesting 😊). The article was effectively written to promote the author. Nothing came up in a Google search either. I'm surprised that this piece has lasted this long. No reliable sources available to establish WP:GNG PlayOboe (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. PlayOboe (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Assam. Spiderone 07:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:GNG - this article does not appear to be WP:PROMO, the subject was a prolific scholar and author, referred to as one of the "literary luminaries of Assam" in an accessible source in the article that also includes a substantial overview of his career. WP:NPROF#7 appears supported. Beccaynr (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Also, in the WP Library: Bhabananda Deka memorial lecture (The Assam Tribune 2011, via Gale, e.g. "The annual lecture is held to commemorate the hallowed memory of late Bhabananda Deka, former principal and eminent economist of yesteryear, who pioneered the writing of books on Economics in Assamese."); "Documentary screening, books release function" (Assam Tribune 2017, via ProQuest, "A documentary film - screening and book - release programme has been organised on the occasion of the 8th death anniversary of pioneer Assam economist and a leading litterateur of the golden Awahon Ramdhenu era of Assamese literature Prof Bhabananda Deka and six months of death of renowned storywriter, radio dramatist and social activist Nalini Prava Deka"); "AWARD INSTITUTED TO HONOUR SANKARI SCHOLARS" (Hindustan Times/Assam Tribune 2006, via ProQuest, "the translation of the highly revered book of Srimanta Sankardev the Kirtan ghosa into English had been accompalished by the renowned Sankari scholar, literary pensioner, author and former Principal of Pragjyotish College Bhabananda Deka, after his untiring eight years long singular effort."); "EX-PRINCIPAL OF PRAGJYOTISH COLLEGE DEAD" (Hindustan Times/Assam Tribune 2006, "His death has been condoled by Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi. In a condolence message Gogoi said the contribution of the noted economist would be forever remembered by the people.") Beccaynr (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment : He is just another college professor who has written some college books. By that reasoning, any professor at a university will be notable for a Knowledge (XXG) page. And contrary to what the article said, he is not Asom Ratna. His son wrote that piece for the Assam Tribune (who happened to be a journalist). My research supports these claims. Wiki Seniors make the final decision. PlayOboe (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
His son did not write this in-depth coverage in the Assam Tribune, which helps support WP:GNG and WP:NPROF notability, in addition to the sources in the article and the sources noted in this discussion. It is unclear which AT article you are referring to, or what research supports the claim that he has a son who is a journalist. Beccaynr (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
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 06:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

No claim of notability is made here, subject does not qualify under any existing SSG. A Google search turns up only 8 hits, among which is this same Knowledge (XXG) article along with some Facebook results. No significant discussion was found, at least not in English. If other language sources exist, they need to be shown. A loose necktie (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete same case as all those non-notable shooters here Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mohammad Hossein Sharifzadeh. Sports2021 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete junior medals are not important in this sport.--Miha2020 (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

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 11:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 Kato Airline. Liz 19:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Kato Airline Flight 603 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article should be redirected to Kato Airline where this incident is already covered. There is not much more to say which warrants a separate article. Bruxton (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 05:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mr.weedle (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Judith McKinlay (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 relies on only 1 source. Whilst some publications, no evidence of notability in academia per requirements for academics. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Liz 05:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG. She did what the majority of doctors do worldwide: she worked with the poor. PlayOboe (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no remaining delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Zibby Owens (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)

Run-of-the-mill! Fails WP:GNG. She is a skilled but not particularly well-known podcaster, according to my thorough investigation. PlayOboe (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep - I did some investigation too about things missing from the article. 1) Zibby Owens: The New York woman upending the publishing scene on The Jerusalem Post on 8th July 2022. 2) Author on Good Morning America 3) interview about her new book on Good Morning America 4) "Owens has staged an awards show to honor the best books, and even started her own publishing company, Zibby Books." at ABC7NY 5) Owens interview on Forbes, 6) Owens' book on Penguin Random House 7) Owens on CNN 8) Owens on Business Insider 9) Owens on Psychology Today 10) Owens on Publishers Weekly. So I think she deserves an article for the amount of notable media featuring her. Jjanhone (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

:::Comment Here is my evaluation of the sources you provided: 1) Zibby Owens: The New York woman upending the publishing scene :Running a publishing company and promoting reading don't automatically make someone notable. 2)  : An article recommending books on a programme or website. 3) Forbes : Same as Good Morning America article. 4) Other articles are promotional and don't indicate her notability. I don't think those articles are suffice to prove her notability. Good day!PlayOboe (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

:::Comment: Examined those articles carefully. It says a lot to be a billionaire's daughter. PlayOboe (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Liz 21:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

This is really an essay, and indeed is structured as such. There's way too much compare and contrast of primary sources (admittedly cited in secondary works) This should be edited down and merged into the main article - I can't see any real reason why this specific battle should get a rather unusual "Assessment of " Unbh (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 03:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

This article has no sources nor could I find any coverage that would establish notability Whpq (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Subject does not automatically qualify as notable per WP:POLITICIAN; the references given here include his high school year book and WP:ROUTINE election results coverage, neither of which qualifies him as notable either. A loose necktie (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep Because Mike Francis was the chairman of the Republican Party of Louisiana from 1994 until 2000, he is absolutely notable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Just because someone is a state party chair doesn't mean they're inherently notable, as neither WP:NPOL nor WP:POLOUTCOMES makes that distinction. In fact, POLOUTCOMES even says: "Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) parties are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons". Curbon7 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Soft Keep: He was elected to a state office. I understand that it's not a statewide election or a legislative body so he's not automatically WP:NPOL, but being elected to a state office and being a former party chair seems enough establish notability to me. --TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment being the chairman of an American state political party is not a claim to automatic notability as far as I am aware, I have seen numerous articles on such figures deleted previously. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further sources available that would establish a more solid footing for notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 03:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 03:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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 03:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete as he does not meet our notability guidelines. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted (G11) by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) ~ Matthewrb 03:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Kolemann Lutz (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)

Only sources that show up are LinkedIn, Facebook, his website (Mars University), and his researchgate page (of 11 publications, one citation). Does not appear to be notable. Also seems to be self-published. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy delete and salt. Clearly non-notable. Mooonswimmer 02:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:G11. Reads like a resume. Mori Calliope fan talk 02:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
And he wrote it himself, deleted per {{db-g11}}. – Athaenara ✉ 02:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
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 Numerology. Liz 03:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Arithmancy (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)

Thinly sourced and duplicative of Numerology, isopsephy, gematria, etc. Sennalen (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggest relocating anything useful to those other pages, then redirecting to Magic in Harry Potter#Arithmancy Sennalen (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑