Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 10 - 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 keep. MBisanz 01:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Indian American Muslim Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable organization with only passing mentions across multiple articles that are available on the web. And from my removed PROD, I stated, "Any article that does mention this organization will not fit well due to NPOV concerns." Some or most of the articles that I've seen attack the organization and might not be a reliable source about the IAMC. Notability is not met and hasn't been provided with the recent edits. A few articles are about protests the group has started but that is not enough to meet GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete: The Bloomberg profile cannot be used to establish notability. The IndiaWest source is not reliable. The Economic Times & FirstPost source only shows passing mentions, and the CAIR source is a press release and cannot establish notability. Reliable sources with SIGCOV are needed. Multi7001 (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep When large news websites such as Bloomberg News carries a factual and neutral 'profile' of the organization. In addition, there are articles for references available from the following:

Above listed references are ONLY a few of the references available after a Google Search to prove the Notability of this article. Passes WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Does not pass GNG. None of those articles are about the organization. All are passing mentions. Passing mentions don't help establish notability in this case. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
ALL of those articles are about this organization. All one has to do is a simple Google Search and they will see plenty of available articles to prove this organization's notability. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I just now added another reference by The Hindu newspaper also. Ngrewal1 (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

They are not about them. They just mention them. That does nothing for GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
When large organizations like NDTV and Firstpost start their actual Article Titles by using the name 'Indian American Muslim Council', how can one deny those articles are not about this organization? Ngrewal1 (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I just now added another newspaper reference by The Hindu newspaper to the above article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Those are passing mentions. That does not help it pass any form of notability. Two of those sources would not count as having a neutral point of view given the fact that come off as attack pieces and thus violate NPOV. I suggest both keep voters to read the GNG guidlines thoroughly because it's clear from the links you have provided don't help your arguments. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment The deletion nominator keeps repeating the same thing and rejecting all the references that are added. Seems to me he's trying to be the judge and jury all by himself? Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Because it has more weight than your arguments. You haven't proven why the article has to remain. Your references don't help improve the article because none of them are about the organization. Do you not understand what "passing mentions" are? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Again says who? Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Per Knowledge (XXG):Notability. The article doesn't follow any policy regarding articles. You have not cited a single source that goes in-depth and covers the organization. There is no significant coverage. Passing mentions is not significant coverage. All you have are articles protests and statements. It doesn't meet any form of notability. Two of the Sunday Guardian don't follow NPOV. Those articles can't be credible sources since they attack the organization by making accusations. No in-depth coverage is in any article linked above. Since there is no significant coverage anywhere, it wouldn't pass the criteria for independent sources. Just because some newspapers have talked about, which again, in passing mentions, doesn't mean anything. So instead of saying it does, read the notability policy and if you won't do that then you're not helping your cause. You're clearly haven't read the notability requirements nor want to and instead, as you have at almost every Afd, care very little about policy. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Where does it say, that a reliable source need to follow NPOV? (I dont need another para long rambling from you, Just a Quote + link for Para will do) FYI, WP:NPOV is a Knowledge (XXG) policy. You have mixed up everything and coming up with ludicrous reasoning. Stop wasting everyone's time. Venkat TL (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
So is GNG. And yes, sources can fit under NPOV, because those two attack pieces from the Sunday Guardian fail any form of neutrality if one were going to source them as such. And they are not reliable sources. Your PA's are not helping your causes. You clearly have an agenda to not deal with it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
As expected you could not find any link. There is no Knowledge (XXG) policy that demands "Reliable sources" to follow WP:NPOV Stop presenting your own misunderstandings as wikipedia policy. And I need whatever you are smoking. Venkat TL (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
You have already been told at the noticeboard and I provided my side on there. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
WikiCleanerMan, you misunderstand policy. Venkat TL is correct. RS do not have to be neutral. It is editors who must be neutral in their editing. -- Valjean (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Any amount of information that uses those sources will not be a reliable source of information and from a editing standpoint will not be written in a neutral point of view. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
If you don't know how to neutrally use a biased source, you need to study our policies. At the noticeboard, I have linked an instructional essay to help you. If the RS is biased and critical, neutral editing will use it to include the critical POV of the source. Articles must included properly-sourced criticism. An editor who neutralizes a critical source or refuses to use it because it is critical and biased is violating NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I will finish this by quoting from Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources, Knowledge (XXG) articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Clearly WikiCleanerMan you need a lot of policy reading to do, before you could participate in AfDs and confuse other participants with your misunderstandings, misreadings, ignorance about policies and guidelines. Venkat TL (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
While I agree that it's not technically "required," that reliable sources be neutral, unbiased, or objective, it's always better if they are. Especially if they are being used in a BLP article. Otherwise, you risk creating a purely WP:ATTACK page that doesn't serve an encyclopedic purpose. It's also pretty impossible for someone to write an article in a neutral tone based on references that aren't neutral. Otherwise, your just putting your supposedly objective perspective in the article when it actually doesn't exist in the references your synthesizing.
In this specific case, since the AfD is about an organization there are specific things that go along with that when it comes to notability. One being that the references can't be overly bias in favor of the organization. Otherwise, they are just glorified PR, puff piece, ads. That were most likely paid for. So the references being neutral, being unbiased, and having objectivity does matter here. Outside of the AfD process those things probably don't matter as much though, but we have to be careful about what we use for notability and not use things for it that are obviously over glorifying or advertising the subject of the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL, how does a statement prove notability? You're being ludicrous by failing to even understand one basic concept on Knowledge (XXG) that I've repeated multiple times already. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright, that is statement. This Journal is another significant coverage in addition to the list I shared. More are found in the link shared below by others. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment - I'm just supportingVenkat TL here, he is correct, RS doesn't have to be neutral - the article has to be written in a neutral way, and if sources present one argument or another, they need to be incorporated in neutral fashion, with balance by providing sources from both sides of the argument (if available)...and in proportion to the weight WP:WEIGHT of the arguments generally presented in the sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. We need coverage of the organization, not passing mentions or coverage of statements by the organization, and it appears we only have one article that meets that requirement, which is not sufficient for WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. "will not fit well due to NPOV concerns" shows a misunderstanding of policy. RS do not have be neutral or positive toward the subject. -- Valjean (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly notable per added RS. The bogus "sources are not neutral" argument reveals a lack of understanding of our RS policy. Non-neutral and critical sources are welcome here. -- Valjean (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It is not notable. No sources added prove notability. Have you gone through each one? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Appearing notable is not notability. The book is a small mention. The pdf accuses the organization of Hinduphobia which might not be a reliable source given the accusations. Even though it's citing the organization, it comes off as an attack piece than a reliable source. The Hindu American Foundation is the publisher of that PDF article and the organization has been accused of promoting Hindu nationalism in subtle ways. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I should've said "there's enough to write a wiki page on". HAF has pov, but neutrality isn't a requirement for sources; it's used as a ref on en-wiki >10 times, so there's some precedent at least. hemantha (brief) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Mentions don't prove notability. And I'll repeat this again, its a passing mention. Passing mentions don't meet the standards of notability. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
It's another passing mention. But it's also very brief. Doing a search for the organization that is the only part that I could find that mentions it. Still not enough. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep I am in agreement with K3. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:19, 13 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ricki Bardes Leurima (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 GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 2 games. Geschichte (talk) 22:27, 10 January 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 12:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Does not meet WP:N. Beyond one brief mention in a 2006 Guardian article there are insufficient citations to establish notability and verifiability. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:07, 10 January 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 12:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Zest AI (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 had accepted this some time back but a fellow editor felt it isn't as notable. Hence, nominating to see what others feel. This is what the fellow editor said The petitioner might argue that the entity got articles published at The Washington Post and Financial Times; without checking the fact that the writers are PR professionals and Freelance contributors. I would not like to identify them over this thread because this information is personal identification details which will be a direct violation of Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. But, somebody wants to Google them then please feel free. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are all based on announcements and PR. I'd love to know why this article was accepted in the first place, the quality of references required to establish notability as per NCORP goes far beyond regurgitated announcements/interviews/quotations. I've tried searching I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 20:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. I discuss just this kind of thing in WP:SERIESA. The reliable sources are dependent and this article does nothing but discuss the company's existence. FalconK (talk) 10:16, 16 January 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 List of video games with LGBT characters. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

List of video game franchises with LGBT 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)

This list is mostly duplicative of List of video games with LGBT characters. I don't see the need for a separate article to group into franchises, especially since this list breaks down by games anyway. Just scanning through this list, it seems most of these characters only appear in one game anyway, and are not recurring franchise characters. In that sense, it's better to treat on a game-by-game basis than a franchise basis. If a character truly does reappear across a franchise (e.g. Poison (Final Fight)), then maybe there can be a separate section in the existing article. TarkusAB 21:36, 10 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Kvutsat Yovel (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)

Nonnotable political group. Unreferenced (its website is dead) for 9 years Loew Galitz (talk) 21:27, 10 January 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 00:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Stories of Bengali Hindus (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)

Other than some primary sources, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Other than some self promotion i didn't find anything. Fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:15, 10 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Mahmoud Elfiky (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 meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Princess of Ara 20:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Kindly note that you are only allowed one "AFD recommendation" per deletion discussion. Kindly see WP:GAFD.Princess of Ara 20:59, 14 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rudralife (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:NORG. All sources are promoting the subject or its exhibitions. Tagged since 2018. Sells pseudoscientific astrology stuff. Venkat TL (talk) 20:11, 10 January 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 12:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Callsign (company) (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 biometrics company. Article written by individual connected to the company. Secondary sources do not refer significantly to the company and primarily just involve quotations from one of its executives on a somewhat-related topic. BrigadierG (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  • BrigadierG, I disagree. I don't consider the subject's raising of $35 million a routine announcement. I don't see any other such announcements. The Reuters article, which was written by a reputable journalist, is significant coverage of the subject's value. But eitherway, the article is almost like a press release and should not be used alone to establish notability. Multi7001 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it isn't so much CORPDEPTH but ORGIND to consider when reading articles that appear to simply repeat/regurgitate announcements and press releases. HighKing 12:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 12:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is the kind of thing I wrote about in WP:SERIESA. An article just about raising money, and yes, even 35 million dollars, is a routine announcement. This article fails utterly to support notability. The techcrunch source, for instance, is primarily dependent and relies heavily on an interview with the CEO. FalconK (talk) 10:20, 16 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Carbyne (company) (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 feels like an advertisement and the company does not seem to meet notability guidelines. A few articles exist but are mainly related to funding. TheForgottenKing (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose So it needs expansion - like most Knowledge (XXG) articles. Cannot understand rationale for deletion. Plenty of sources, plenty of potential.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes the WP:GNG with relative ease. The idea that articles discussing the funding of a company do not contribute to notability is not rooted in policy. I have seen similar attempts of discounting sourcing before. It's part of a nomination avalanche, moving time efforts away from the article space. gidonb (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Hi Gidonb, you've mentioned "policy" and referenced GNG which isn't policy but a guideline. So if you accept guidelines then WP:SNG will tell you that for organizations, WP:NCORP is the appropriate one. Which in turn has the WP:ORGIND section with the definition for "Independent Content". So, while you're correct that articles *discussing" the funding should be considered, articles that merely/solely repeat/regurgitate announcements on funding are not OK. So with all that in mind, which references are you looking at where the funding is being "discussed" and not repeated/regurgitated? HighKing 12:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • delete Company of unclear function and notability. I failed to find any independent non-promotional in-depth coverage. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 12:34, 11 January 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 00:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Old Catholics for Christ (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)

Clearly fail WP:NCHURCH (WP:NOTABILITY is nonexistent) and has no source (WP:V).
No mention of this alleged group on Google books, no mention on Google Scholar, no mention on the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:19, 10 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Being a ceo doesn’t translate to automatic notability, furthermore a WP:BEFORE search shows me hits in self generated sources, self published sources and primary sources which we all do not count towards notability. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 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 00:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Miklós Palencsár (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)

Overt promotional COI article on a non notable business man who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus a GNG fail. They were indeed given an award but unfortunately a non notable award thus WP:ANYBIO fail also, the ref bombing is not only an attempt to create a false sense of notability but even the refs themselves are all unreliable. This is an WP:ADMASQ Celestina007 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I am neutral on this subject. I would like to note that, although this does not necessarily guarantee exclusion or inclusion, this page does have an article on Hungarian Knowledge (XXG), albeit it was made by the same person who made this article. Dunutubble (talk) 00:02, 11 January 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. It's SNOWing. Clear consensus, and creation shenanigans. Will SALT this as well as correct capitalization. Star Mississippi 02:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Not notable. Hasn't even started playing football in college. Lacks significant coverage, so no GNG. Mvqr (talk) 18:04, 10 January 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. czar 19:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Valgerður Þóroddsdóttir (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 meet notability guidelines. Furthermore article does not contain any relevant or encyclopedic content. Arielarielariel (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

For example, both the links removed on 8th Jan with comment "(Citations do not exist, do not link to any external verifying information (links broken). Have been deleted. The further links that do work do not verify the information given.)" are available on the Internet Archive (here and here). Having removed them (rather than tagging as dead links or taking the time to find the archived copies) the editor then proposed the 6-year-old article for speedy deletion A7. Not constructive editing practice. PamD 15:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes there pattern of editing is a bit odd, but I can see that they are doing anything nefariouus. They have taken some material away, but also added material and added citations...and have been doing it for 4 years. A little bit unusual, but you can work on a page, and then decide that may be it isn't warranted upon reflection. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:18, 12 January 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. czar 19:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Prezzee (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 speedied this following a G-11 speedy request, but the main editor has requested that it be restored and brought to AfD, so I'll leave it to the community to decide if this reaches the threshold for G11, and whether in any case it's notable enough. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 10 January 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 Gannavaram#Education. czar 19:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

This is a procedural nomination per the outcome of Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 31#Little Lights Free Education High School, I am neutral. The concern in the RfD nomination was "Delete, not mentioned at target page. Though it was redirected without discussion, many Andra Pradesh schools have been deleted recently.", the page was redirected (to Gannavaram) with the edit summary: "redirection of page wholly unsourced for 8.636 years;". Courtesy pings to the participants at RfD: @Geschichte, Mdewman6, Lenticel, and Tamzin: and the redirector @Fourthords:. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 10 January 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. Wizardman 17:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahmed Adel Alykob (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)

Ahmed Adel Alykob

Non-notable association football player, does not meet general notability or football notability. Does not appear to have played at the fully professional level, but it does not appear that any teams or leagues in Iraq are considered to be at the fully professional level. The references have been checked, and are press releases and interviews, so that they do not establish general notability.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Newsanyway.com Press release about transfer No No Yes No
2 Bignewsnetwork.com Press release about return to play No No Yes No
3 Strongarticle.com Same as 2, press release No No Yes No
4 Odysseyonline.com Same as 2 and 3, press release No No Yes No'
5 Sunrisenews.co Interview with subject No Yes No
6 Dailyscanner.com Interview with subject No Yes No


An article about the subject was created in article space in November 2021, and was then moved back to draft space by User:DMySon. This article was then created in article space, by the same editor as created the draft, which appears to be tendentious. This article should be deleted due to lack of notability, and the draft can be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you. I did not bias the article. I am my first article on Knowledge (XXG), which is an article translated from Arabic Knowledge (XXG). When I translated the article into English with the sources in English, it was rejected for lack of English sources and turned into a draft. I modified the article and added the confiscation in another language. English and Arabic sources have been deleted I don't understand yet what the article needs I hope for an explanation The article is in Arabic https://ar.wikipedia.org/احمد_عادل_أليعكوب

The decision is yours and thank you again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha m jad (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 January 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. MBisanz 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Zymergen (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, WP:ORGIND. Case of WP:PROMO /WP:ADMASQ. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

An entity having a page in a different language is not a gaurantee for it having an English wikipedia page. -Hatchens (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The point is there is at least some level of encyclopedic international coverage already to support the argument for notability. The article is not promotional or advertising per your nomination, it should be kept. - Indefensible (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep There are several Forbes staff, CNBC, Bloomberg, San Francisco Business Journal, and Barron's articles about the company. It looks like the company had a dramatic rise and fall, not unlike Theranos. The page only has 2 of these sources currently, and no information about its issues over the past year. I'm going to edit it to make some improvements. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The CNBC source and the two bloomberg sources, at least, are routine "line goes up, line goes down" coverage that's useful for stock trading but doesn't place the company in any particular historical context. FalconK (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Excellent sources were mentioned by BuySomeApples that clearly proves notability. Alimovvarsu (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nothing written about this company or its failure outside of the business press, with the vast bulk of coverage in reliable sources being routine stock trading coverage. Nowhere near the depth of coverage as the collapse of a company like Theranos. It's not even comparable; Zymergen has little said about it anywhere other than analyst notes. FalconK (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    Reliable sources from business press are what should be expected for a business article. That is still enough to qualify for encyclopedic coverage. What sort of coverage do you expect for a business otherwise? - Indefensible (talk) 20:54, 16 January 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. ✗plicit 00:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
Alex Brearley (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)

In the fall of last year it was decided after a long discussion that only olympic medal winners are default notable. Brearley as part of a 2 person team scored 11th in 1 event at 1 olympics, which is very far below winning a medal. I searched for information on his at google, google scholar, google news, google new archives and google books. I could not find any significant sources about this Alex Brearley. There is a more recent academic with this same name who may be notable, but this one is not by any stretch of the imagination. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 10 January 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. Consensus that there isn't enough sourcing, either through reviews or the shortlisting Nosebagbear (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Time Apprentice (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)

Including:

Two books from the same non−notable author which fail WP:NBOOK. I can find no professional reviews or other significant coverage, nor any other indication of notability, of either book. Lennart97 (talk) 13:29, 10 January 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. MBisanz 01:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hani (Yadav) (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 actor. Unable to independently verify his acting credits, and he's not mentioned in the news refs provided. KH-1 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear wikipedian sir, I'm checked this article this article is transparent and it's show transparency, independently verify his acting credits, kindly checked External link, which is imdb link, all actings credit of this person are shown on IMDb Viveknigam7 (talk) 3 January 2022 (UTC)

IMDb is hardly definitive. There's little to no third party coverage in reliable sources of this person and I have my doubts about the veracity of his purported filmography.-KH-1 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

dear sir, according to my perspective this person is child actor of 17 years old, and yet it's little popular as but it is notable because it's just child now, i think in future he becomes notable actor , i'm not helping this person, i'm just share my thoughts or opinions abouts abouts this person from my perspective, kindly keep it article on Knowledge (XXG) don't delete the article of this person . i'm respect all wikipedians, Thank you Viveknigam7 (talk) 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Recheck: kindly check references and exerternal links of this article Godluckhx (talk) 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: "Kartikeychief" has made few edits outside of this discussion.-KH-1 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 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 12:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Texas Iron Spikes (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 was deleted via PROD many years ago but has since been restored; it still seems to fall far short of notability. The sources in the article are not sufficient to meet WP:NORG, and a WP:BEFORE search finds only trivial mentions and unreliable sources. A redirect to University of Texas at Austin might be a possible alternative to deletion, but this minor organization isn't mentioned in the article's body (and including it would likely be undue given the lack of sourcing). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Redirect - to UT-Austin. No mention in the Handbook of Texas Online, but that source does say that as of 2001, UT-Austin had twenty-five fraternities and fourteen sororities chapters, and lists some of the more notable ones. Texas Iron Spikes are not mentioned. Source. Texas A & M University has a chapter of the Iron Spikes, but like the UT-Austin chapter, the only links I find on the web are their own social media sites.— Maile (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 02:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 10 January 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 12:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Erica Schoenberg (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 subject of this article does not seem to be notable at all by the standard of professional poker players. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 10 January 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 13:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

R.I.P Society Records (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)

Deprodded by its creator in 2011 but appears to be a non notable record label so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 10 January 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 with No prejudice against speedy renomination. North America 10:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Mylene Sheath (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 nonnotable label considering the references that we do have are its own website. Sikonmina (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 10 January 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 with No prejudice against speedy renomination. North America 10:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sylvan (band) (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 are a lack of reliable references and the ones we can salvage are unreliable external links. Sikonmina (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - Despite a long career and many albums, it appears that significant and reliable coverage has eluded this band. They have a bare-bones listing at AllMusic but none of the albums have staff reviews. They get occasional unreliable blog reviews (e.g. , ) but even those are rare. Beyond that I can only find some basic retail listings, even when searching for the band's name in conjunction with the founding members' names. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • hardrockhaven.net seems to be reliable and with Allmusic, I believe, would be 2 reliable sources. I don't know of other persons' opinions of this. Sikonmina (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
For AllMusic, the expectation in WP is that the site should have a professionally-written biography and robust reviews of their albums. This band only has a bare placeholder in AllMusic without anything beyond their existence listed. AllMusic is a reliable source when it says something, not nothing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused by this reasoning. There are selfpublished albums, aren't there? And aren't albums defined by the number of songs on the disc as are singles and extended plays? If it's been noted on allmusic, then it should be notable. Sikonmina (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Looking at , it states:

"If I send you my biography or a write-up on my product, will you add it to your database?

TiVo's editorial policy is that all reviews, synopses, and biographies must be written by their staff and freelance contributors, so they cannot simply copy and paste content supplied by artists and labels or studios. However, this copy is very helpful to them as research material, so please do send it along."

so if the album or band is on the website, it should be WP:N. Sikonmina (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
See WP:SIGCOV, where you'll find that merely being mentioned in a source is not sufficient. There has to be descriptive or critical context too. See also WP:EXIST, as nothing is notable just because it exists. All we know from AllMusic is that this band exists. So what? We don't need a Knowledge (XXG) article that says nothing verifiable about a band that nobody else ever said anything verifiable about. I was once mentioned by name in a city newspaper because I had done some volunteer work. That doesn't make me notable just because the source is reliable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Huh? You nominated the band for deletion because there were few reliable sources, and then changed your mind after the ensuing discussion in which we found even fewer reliable sources? Now you have the opportunity to take this to the next level. Improve the band's article by removing all unverifiable and unsupported statements, after which there will be nothing left, then repopulate the text with everything that AllMusic doesn't say about them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
You are voting delete so should I withdraw this nomination? Sikonmina (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a vote and I'm not perfect. In light of doomsdayer520's response, I feel I have to balance those articles that follow Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines. I am still learning. Sikonmina (talk) 08:31, 17 January 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. Even factoring out a single non-policy backed vote, there's clear consensus to back the deletion of this article as lacking in any notability from reliable sources.

As a minor adjunct, I am interested that if someone sets a trend for irregular bolded verbiage, most editors will follow suit ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Onraet (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 procedural nomination, requested by 2A02:C7E:3438:AD00:A9C0:5E81:5251:4075 (talk · contribs). The rationale is "Hello, please could someone list the page Andrew Onraet for discussion on notability grounds as outline on that page's talk section? Thank you kindly". I am neutral Ritchie333 11:07, 10 January 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 13:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Dublin Forum (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 Forum has left no discernible historical impact. All it seemed to have been was a policy roadshow by Fianna Fáil, which with the passage of time, I'm not sure it even merits half a line on that page. A previous discussion in 2005 reached no consensus. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:36, 10 January 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 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Abhijit Majumdar CPIML (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 elected to a notable position, so is not NPOL. Lack of sources covering him, so no GNG. Pikavoom 09:45, 10 January 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 Pugad Baboy. ✗plicit 13:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ang Hiwaga ng Dueñas (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)

Unreferenced since 2006 and fails WP:GNG. Propose redirecting it to Pugad Baboy as an ATD, but since this is still effectively deletion I thought I'd run it through here. FOARP (talk) 09:12, 10 January 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. North America 09:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

WADATA WATERSIDE (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 film. No significant coverage in RS found. (t · c) buidhe 08:48, 10 January 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. per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Bungle 18:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Despite alleged involvement in several notable productions including Ghazi Shaheed, Alpha Bravo Charlie and Dhuwan (all of which have been edited heavily by the same WP:SPA), I was unable to find any coverage when searching "Roami Khan" or when searching "Roamer Khan". The sources provided by the creator fail to even mention Khan. Spiderone 07:08, 10 January 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. North America 08:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Libertarianie (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 appears to be a brand-new Polish political party, but the article lacks sufficient third-party reliable sources to establish notability (and for most of the details of the article as well). Contested draftify. – bradv 04:30, 10 January 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. North America 08:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Technology Innovations in Statistics Education (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 PRODded on the grounds that it didn't appear to be indexed in SCOPUS or anywhere selective, but Liz noted a 2009 PROD that I'd missed, so we're here. Star Mississippi 00:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:16, 10 January 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 04:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Corona Kumar (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)

Corona Kumar

This unreleased movie has no references, and so is not verifiable, and does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines, or general notability. There is already a draft with more information than this article, which nonetheless also does not satisfy film notability at this time, so this stub should be deleted rather than draftified. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 10 January 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. but draftify, which is a valid outcome for a recently restored article undergoing active editing. Star Mississippi 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Brandon Wilson (writer) (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 along with articles written about the books appear to have been primarily written by the same IP; lots of biographical detail with very little reliable sourcing. No third party references to establish notability; no evidence of winning notable awards (e.g., ForeWord "Book of the Year" does not appear to be a notable award OhNoitsJamie 02:31, 10 January 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. Eddie891 Work 03:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sophie Simone Cortina (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. Found the article after being curious who voiced Curie in Fallout 4, saw the tags, looked around, and while she seems to have lived a very interesting life, that isn't the criteria. I don't see where she has significant coverage in reliable sources. Lot of mentions of her products by people who sell them, but that isn't WP:RS. There is an interesting claim about being a top 20 tennis player in Mexico, but I don't find the sources to back it up. The article is mainly just primary links, which is not acceptable for a WP:BLP. In short, not notable enough to include at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:08, 10 January 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. MBisanz 01:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Nafiu Bala Rabiu (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)

Strong possible COI for a promotional non notable Nigerian “business man” & Entrepreneur” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not meet our notability threshold. A before search links me to press releases and unreliable sources that have the staff reporter as “guest editor” indicating an invited guest which appears to be promotional. The sources used in the article mirrors a before search which show a plethora of unreliable source and unreliable pieces. Celestina007 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment — Noting that the editor above is the article creator. The Daily trust source is an interview thus not independent of the subject and can’t count towards notability. The Vanguard source has an empty byline and the piece itself is overtly promotional thus indicative of a sponsored material or an op-Ed, either of which would not count towards notability as are unreliable. The This day source expressly states it was written by a guest editor, thus an unreliable piece. The fourth and last source you linked above, The leadership ng source is literally a press release. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment — Clearly understood, now I get it. Thanks for the in-depth explanation. Kindly do what is necessary, either delete, redirect or move it to draft. Moshswacide (talk) 15:00, 16 January 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) Enos733 (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

I have been trying to improve the quality of the page for a while but there is simply not enough sourcing to create a more complete article the only independent sources I can find that mention the topic in more than passing are a article in the daily star about an opinion piece by one of the groups opponents and a letter in the Scotsman from someone involved in it.

It should be redirected to the Scottish National Party, I generally lean towards maintaining articles on niche topics but there's no point maintaining a source-less stud if it can not be improved.--Llewee (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. "Study could see whisky deliver £1bn for Scots economy". The National. 12 October 2021.
  2. "GMB criticised for suggesting whisky levy proposal would be a 'job killer'". The National. 17 November 2021.
  3. Ramsay, Bill (19 November 2014). "Trade Unions and the SNP". Bella Caledonia.
  4. "Green campaign for renters rights backed by SNP trade union group in tenant rights rebellion". Scottish Greens. 30 June 2020.
  5. "RMT responds to SNP Trade Union Group statement on CalMac". RMT. 25 June 2015.
  6. McFadyen, Andrew (4 May 2015). "UK general election". www.aljazeera.com.
Passes WP:NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I was looking for sources but couldn't find anything adequate, to say, cover the subject's history. Most of those sources you listed mention the subject in passing. The fact that this article has existed as a stub without sources throughout most of Knowledge (XXG)'s history and has been one of a small handful of articles listed as requiring urgent attention on the UK politics project since the last AFD does kind of lend itself to my point. If their were fast amounts of high quality sources available to turn the article into some kind of detailed well sourced page then presumable someone would have done it by now.--Llewee (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:NEGLECT and WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. We're building an encyclopedia not a bridge, where's the urgent attention needed? There's 15 sources now available, more than enough to sustain an article. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I've made an attempt at clean up of the article, adding seven sources and more details and removing unnecessary parts. Editors may wish to consider WP:HEY (or not). Am pinging @JPxG: who indicated an intention to incorporate the identified sources at the last nomination of this article. So as to be completely transparent, also pinging all other previous participants: MarkH21, RaviC, Necrothesp, Angryskies. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There's a page long (two half pages) discussion of the SNP TUG forerunner, the Association of Scottish Nationalist Trade Unionists (ASNTU), in Jack Brand's The National Movement in Scotland (1978) (page numbers not available, but visible on Google Books in the section titled "Industrial structure of the party"). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:28, 11 January 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. MBisanz 01:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Overillumination (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)

Several contributors have noted dubious claims in the article and that the content of the article is not very related to the subject of the article. Sauer202 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep There are alot of nominations for deletions for articles on rugby league footballers where there first name isn't known, I think they should all be nominated in the same AfD. ビッグツリ64 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC) indefinitely blocked user / trolling comment
How is that relevant? Spiderone 23:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to minimal participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, snood1205 19:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

    • (This article is 15 years old with well over 500 edits. Instead of deletion, if the consensus is that the article is un-salvageable, why not just reverted it to an earlier version, or even back to the original version from 2006?) Jim Grisham (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a real topic, tho its written a polemic essay and needs improvement. For example, the illustration include at least one where the lighting is being used deliberately for highlighting merchandise, not outof misdesign or indifference. . The original version has become outdated by technology. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 16 January 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.

↑