< October 01 | October 03 > |
---|
- 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. Maybe some of these sources brought up in this AFD discussion could find their way into the article now. Liz 23:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Josho Pat Phelan (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 biographical article of a religious leader does not demonstrate why she has notability in the broader context of Buddhism in the United States. Kansan (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Buddhism. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nom, very little sourcing found. Appears to be a priest/minister, nothing notable about that. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I do want disclose that I wrote the article for Chapel Hill Zen Center (where she is the abbess) last month, but I have never been to that Zen Center nor have I ever met this person or have any connection with her in any way. However, in researching sources for that article I did come across some sources that @Kansan and Oaktree b might not be aware of. In addition to the PBS mention that's used as a ref in the article she was featured in The News & Observer in 2000 (B1 B3) and across several pages of this book that was published in 2012. While it's not super in-depth, this 2017 book is more than a trivial mention as described in WP:GNG. Not counting that last one, I think that's three good sources that are independent of the article's subject, meeting WP:GNG. She has also written works on Buddhism, and the first criteria listed at WP:AUTHOR is being widely-cited. I won't just flood the page with examples but she is cited in this 2005 book, this 2012 book, this 2013 book, this 2014 book, this 2017 book, and this 2022 book. There's even cites in things like a music doctoral thesis. I do think that notability is there, it's just not reflected in the current state of the article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BASIC, and to paraphrase the subjective importance essay: some subjects may not seem important, but if they meet Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion criteria, they are notable. Beccaynr (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Sources provided demonstrate a meeting of the general notability guideline. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:03, 9 October 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 21:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thomas Lyon-Bowes, Lord Glamis (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 apparent notability. The article reads like a genealogical entry, presumably because there is not much else to say. It appears that the article exists solely because he is a great-grandfather of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, but that is not a good enough reason. Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Per Surtsicna. There seems to be no coverage in the sources that justifies notability. It is a merely genealogical entry. Sole claim to notability seems to be its relation to The Queen Mother and Elizabeth II. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. While a distant link to the Queen Mother and Elizabeth II, this is not sufficient alone for the article. Coldupnorth (talk) 17:33, 7 October 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 21:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Charlotte Lyon-Bowes, Lady Glamis (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 indication of nobility. The article is no more than a genealogical entry, as there is nothing else to say about the subject but their spouse and children. The article apparently exists solely because the subject is a great-grandparent of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. See WP:INVALIDBIO. Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a gemological entry of a non-notable person. NO biographical information besides her birth date and children's names. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Does not show notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Coldupnorth (talk) 17:32, 7 October 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. Strong consensus established for keeping this article with no opposing views. Closing per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Naukar (1943 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG with no sources except one trivial mention. Also couldn't find any sources google-wise, but the search is cluttered with various other topics. There is most likely reliable sources out there, but I can't find them, and it definitely isn't fit for Knowledge (XXG) in its uncited state. VTVL (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. VTVL (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: As of Box Office India, It widely distributed in India, It is in 5 Number verdict as a Hit movie so As of WP:NFO, It is notable. Contributor008 (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: An independent entry in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, say no more. Shahid • 09:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Notable film as above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Notable film. I am not sure we will find a lot of coverage about a film released in 1943. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifthapril (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep meet guidelines Lightburst (talk) 00:25, 9 October 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 07:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Golam Mustofa (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)
Inflated article created by an editor for payment. Just name checked in sources, even most of them are made-up (press releases/paid for articles which newspapers never maintain in their archives - that's why they are citing pictures - smart work). ROTM awards, fails WP:SIGCOV. Michalis Andreou (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 25. —Talk to my owner:Online 20:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete looks like promotion to me. The person didn't won any major award for automatic notability. Other than some passing mentions, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 06:10, 6 October 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) 02:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Litmus (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)
Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. The article was undeleted at WP:REFUND per an IPv6 user's request, where the reasoning (This page was accurate and not offensive I do not know why it was removed
) had nothing to due with the original WP:PROD reason. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to meet WP:BAND as there's 2 albums released on an indie label that in itself is notable and represents other notable artists. Article could sure use some love though. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I looked at this about four times as I'm working through the cat:nn list for this obscure band. There is no coverage. The first two references are dead and the last is a profile. I feel it fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep 10:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence at all of notability. A total lack of significant coverage. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:01, 9 October 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 21:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Michael Jacobs (economist) (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 set up this discussion without logging in and now I've created an account to ensure it gets full consideration. I have not edited before so I apologise if I have not got the form quite right. I use Knowledge (XXG) often and am often moved to edit but have never done so. In this case, I have (small) knowledge of the subject. I am not sure if it is correct to delete but am not sure what other action might be appropriate so I will be be bold (which I can see is a principle at Knowledge (XXG)) and let others judge. Essentially, I know that the subject was in charge of the staff at the Fabian Society (of which I am a member, society not staff) at the beginning of the century, but I am not aware that he is an economist. I do not wish to call anyone's judgement into question, but it is quite clear that the article has been set up by someone who may be known to, or may actually be, the subject (I understand that this allegation may be bad form at Knowledge (XXG) but it seems a reasonable inference). @Shardadean seems to not be a signed-in editor and seems to have created all the substantive content. Some of the supporting citations refer directly to the subject's own website. Some of the reference are peculiar and again unevidenced (e.g. Ref 13 claims that the subject in effect set up the highly notable Stern Report but provides no evidence other than a link to the Stern Report itself). The website, and therefore the article ('economist' 'professor'), does not reflect the subject's status as what appears to be an adjunct scholar at Sheffield University and formerly a visiting professor (i.e not a member of staff) elsewhere. There is no reference to a professorial chair or appointment anywhere. It provides no evidence that the subject is an economist (e.g. an economics degree?). It may be that as a former adviser to a prime minister the subject should be in Knowledge (XXG), I am not sure, but the present content is both un-evidenced and misleading at respective points and so it would seem to me better to delete the article and let it start anew organically. As my final contribution here (I have made a number of edits already!) I see that WP:COI may be the case here. For example, many of the key paragraphs (including the first few) seem to be an unreferenced description of a book (in effect a self-review). I leave it to other editors to decide what should happen with this page, but the article does look hopelessly compromised. My apologies if I am wrong. Richard3444 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I will comment on other pages as appropriate now that I have started here! Richard3444 (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 2. —Talk to my owner:Online 20:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, United Kingdom, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Economics. TJMSmith (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- comment @Richard3444 thank you for your contribution and question here. This is a clear case where a discussion should be held on how the subject should be represented on Knowledge (XXG) and whether material should be removed from the article that is biased and does not follow WP:NPOV. However, the subject at hand is whether the article should be deleted and not whether it should be rewritten and re-organized (which it probably should). To decide upon deletion, we have to identify whether the subject has made significant contributions / impact as an academic or author to be of general interest and warrant inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). To decide this we rely on guidelines such as WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:PROF. Note that even if the article is biased and written by a person with WP:COI, it would indicate a rewrite or even WP:TNT but not necessarily a deletion of the article which needs to be decided separately. Currently, it seems the best argument for notability is the subjects work as an author, I find at least two book reviews which are generally sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR: . --hroest 15:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and improve: even if created by someone connected to the subject, the subject seems to be often cited in British publications and appears to be notable. --Milowent • 16:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - This academic is a published full professor not an adjunct. At least two of his books have received reviews. He meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR and may also meet WP:NACADEMIC as his work is widely cited by others. An online WP:BEFORE search indicates that he is often called upon as a subject expert and government advisor in economics. The article can be improved, but should not be deleted. Note to Richard3444: I understand that you made this nomination in good faith, however it is unusual for a new editor's first edit to be an AfD nomination. It takes a while (in my case a few years) to fully understand the criteria for notability per Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines and all of its complexities and subtleties. Netherzone (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment from nominator: Thanks very much indeed for all of these comments @netherzone and @Milowent. I think it's clear I've started by biting off more than I can chew here. I've read your comments and I'll learn from them, do be sure of that. I've carried out simple edits for a while without signing in, but now I've done the latter I've clearly got a lot to learn re: the WP policies. I don't think I can withdraw the proposal but it's obvious to me now that it would be best if I used this article to practice edit and improve it a bit. As I understand it, an uninvolved editor will close and keep. Now I see your points, it's obvious the subject is WP:GNG (learning...). Re: full professor. Tbh, that was what caught my eye in the first place. I do not work in academia but I do have a (slightly ageing) doctorate and my recollection is that professorial fellows are senior adjuncts usually funded through project grant funding (e.g ESRC). Often, the project is well enough established to bring in senior professionals from outside academia who do not have the academic background to qualify for a tenured post. It's not a slight on the individual, and some departments use the facility more than others. The tenured professors I know today often draw attention to the lack of academic publications; i.e. a practical book or two on an applied subject would not normally make someone competitive for a chair or personal chair unless they had a strong record of high value academic papers. Regardless, I completely take your points about WP and I'm really very grateful for you taking the time. I'll keep it simple for a while..... best wishes, and thanks again Richard3444 (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @Richard3444, and thanks for your note. I'm in the U.S. where Professorial Fellow may have a different meaning here than in the UK. I did a quick search for Professorial Fellow in UK, and found this on the Oxford University website:
"Professorial Fellows are the holders of Statutory Chairs, the most senior professorships in the University. They are all members of the College’s Governing Body."
Sheffield may have a different definition than Oxford, our article, Academic ranks in the United Kingdom lists Professorial Fellows as those on a research rather than teaching career path. Netherzone (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)- I think we should be careful about definitions of job titles, which may be different at different universities in the same country, or even between different departments at the same university. Also Oxford and Cambridge are often different from other British universities. In this case I don't think it really matters whether the subject is a full-time professor with a standard career path or not. He seems to have enough reviewed books and highly-cited papers to be notable. And, Richard3444, please continue to be bold. As long as you are prepared to show your working nobody should admonish you for it. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @Richard3444, and thanks for your note. I'm in the U.S. where Professorial Fellow may have a different meaning here than in the UK. I did a quick search for Professorial Fellow in UK, and found this on the Oxford University website:
- 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 21:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Shorea cara (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 an unpublished species name; it doesn't have the sourcing presumed by WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Article was created by a bot from a record in the IUCN database. The IUCN record has been deleted. Presumably the plants in nature reserve Leuweung Sancang can be identified to a published species, but it is now impossible to know what that is (if IUCN had preserved their record as some form of redirect, identification could be possible). Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, per IUCN deletion. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale (talk・contribs) 23:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete With the only treatment gone, there is no basis for an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:06, 3 October 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 21:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Huntington Beach (rate center) (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 the only article on Knowledge (XXG) about a particular rate center. Do we need this? I think not. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:GNG. I can't find any other rate center articles, and there's nothing here to specify why this should have its own article. Further, a redirect to Area codes 714 and 657 seems unnecessary, as the name of this article is pretty unlikely to be searched for. — HelloAnnyong 04:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Per nom. does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete not notable. Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 9 October 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 21:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Onselling of sperm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see why this should be its own article. This article is too UK-specific and mostly unsourced and should be deleted as it stands. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a topic that's afforded any coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I considered merging as an alternative to deletion, but there's already a brief treatment given to the topic at Sperm donation#Onselling, and even that is probably overlong. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OR. No reliable secondary sources are cited either within the article or in the Onselling section of the Sperm donation page. Unclear from basic Internet/Wikipedia Library searches that the term "onselling of sperm" has much currency to begin with; even the lone source cited within the article (London Sperm Bank) does NOT use the term. There is even a Sperm donation laws by country page which this page points to, where this topic could be covered. Even if "onselling" seems like it *should* be discussed separately from "donation", we can't justify having a standalone page until there is SIGCOV on the topic. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Firefangledfeathers has the right rationale here. Lightburst (talk) 00:28, 9 October 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 Redundant. The page meets speedy deletion criteria WP:A1 and so this AFD is redundant and unnecessary. Feel free to reopen if for some reason the speedy gets declined, but I see no reason why that would happen. (non-admin closure) Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- St Stephen's High School, Pathanapuram (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)
St Stephen's High School, Pathanapuram St Stephen's Higher Secondary Pathanapuram
Two sub-stubs for what appears to be one school that do not provide any indication of general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Kerala. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:40, 2 October 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 Narendra Modi. Valid ATD that solves to the nomination issues. Star Mississippi 02:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Heeraben Modi (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 on Knowledge (XXG) is not inherited; all coverage this person has received in reliable sources is a consequence of, and relates to, her relationship to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC) For the record, I'm fine with a redirect, and would prefer that to outright deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a misinterpretation of inherited notability. It doesn't matter why reliable sources cover her, only that they do (or don't, as the case may be). If she's received significant coverage, then she's notable, no matter who her son might be. pburka (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- That isn't accurate, Pburka. Family members of famous individuals routinely receive extensive coverage in the media; we have articles on them only when they are a) independently notable, or b) when there is such a volume of coverage and biographical detail that a standalone page becomes necessary. Neither is true here. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- That's not supported by policy. If family members of famous people receive extensive coverage then they are notable per WP:BASIC. We don't care why someone became famous; only that they are. I encourage you to review WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO, which explain that significant coverage determines notability regardless of the person's relationship to a more famous person. She's not automatically notable because of her famous son, but she's not automatically non-notable, either! pburka (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- You've both misread my statement, and misunderstood that essay. Nowhere have I said she's not notable because she's related to Narendra Modi; I've said she has no coverage that doesn't relate to that relationship. To put it in language you seem to prefer, SIGCOV does not exist, because the coverage is all about her son. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- That's not supported by policy. If family members of famous people receive extensive coverage then they are notable per WP:BASIC. We don't care why someone became famous; only that they are. I encourage you to review WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO, which explain that significant coverage determines notability regardless of the person's relationship to a more famous person. She's not automatically notable because of her famous son, but she's not automatically non-notable, either! pburka (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- That isn't accurate, Pburka. Family members of famous individuals routinely receive extensive coverage in the media; we have articles on them only when they are a) independently notable, or b) when there is such a volume of coverage and biographical detail that a standalone page becomes necessary. Neither is true here. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, relationships do not confer notability. She has received coverage, yes, but significant coverage? No. Only coverage for being Modi's mother. Bishonen | tålk 21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC).
- Redirect to Narendra Modi, where the known and essential biographical details of Heeraben can be mentioned. I looked through all the cited sources in the current version and if one looks past the RefBombing, there is really no substantial independent coverage to be found. The sources essentially fall into two groups:
- Trivial mentions in articles/books about Modi , , ,
- Copies or paraphrases of , , , , , a blog-post/tweet Narendra Modi wrote related to the subject.
- Thousands of similar sources with trivial and/or non-independent coverage can be found on a web/news search but that does not help establish notability under WP:GNG. And a Google Book search spits out only sources in the first category along with this self-published book of images of the Modis "taken from the internet". Abecedare (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect per Abecedare above. Please note that her name can also be found spelled Hiraben Modi (already redirected) and Hiraba Modi in the English language press. Storchy (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep : She is the recipient of Nari Jagran Samman 2016 award and its reported by all major newspapers in India. Being Modi's mother and being Nari Jagran Samman 2016 award makes her to pass the minimum 2 notability factors.Additionally she is within the Category:Indian_centenarians . Thus I think this article could be kept live. Jehowahyereh (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that the award means anything. It's awarded by a non-notable magazine; I could not even find any evidence that anyone else has ever received the award, or that it's been awarded in other years. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's been reported as a substantial big features in almost all Indian Newspapers, which itself shows the prominense of that award. Jehowahyereh (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi , The award given by the media established in the year 1932 ( Sakal ) is removed by labeling non-notable awards. What you are saying ( Jagran Prakashan 1975 ) is also an award given by the media. How is it accepted as notable? PravinGanechari (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's been reported as a substantial big features in almost all Indian Newspapers, which itself shows the prominense of that award. Jehowahyereh (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that the award means anything. It's awarded by a non-notable magazine; I could not even find any evidence that anyone else has ever received the award, or that it's been awarded in other years. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I was going to nominate it for deletion per this exact reason when I came across it but got sidetracked. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. The award given is also not notable.PravinGanechari (talk) 2:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Deleteper Vanamonde.Saturnrises (talk) 12:33, 9 October 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. It looks like the article has basically been rewritten and editors who have commented beieve it now meets Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. Liz 21:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Cassie Cage (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 fails WP:GNG and should probably be merged to the list of characters. The only WP:SIGCOV I have found is a single article here, everything else is a trivial mention or from a situational source. There were two things about her that drew some slight attention, one is a controversy her design being similar to a MMA fighter that quickly was ignored, another was her selfie fatality that was picked up upon its announcement and then forgotten about. None indicate enduring notability for the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep.While the article could use some improvement (particularly the Other media section's mentions of her comic book appearances) when it comes to references, I think there's a good amount of referencing (and from reliable sources, obviously) in the rest of the sections. So don't think it fails GNG. And calling "everything else" a trivial mention seems reductionist.
- On the note of the selfie fatality, I'm pretty sure even if "forgotten about", WP:NTEMP should apply here. While yes, I think it's true that it hasn't been covered today in the same way it was back in 2015, it's also true that this was a fatality from the 2015 game, and there's been the release of MK11 release since then. But.. I did find this 2019 source that mentions the selfie fatality. So that should probably quell any such "forgotten about" concerns about her fatality. The 2019 source also brings up things that would be good to include in her Development/Design section (which I'll be working on shortly).
- On the Felice Herrig (MMA fighter design controversy) note, I don't see the issue? It's relating to her design and while it seems like there's been no legal development in that situation, I really don't think that just because it was "ignored" makes it any less relevant for inclusion in the appropriate Design section? Regardless, I added info to the article so that it now includes Herrig stating her camp was looking into legal options and that no action developed from that.
- Way more options exist for this than deleting, so I'm currently looking for other ways to improve the article but I think this is a strong Keep. Thanks for the Game Informer reference. Will be using it to add to this article. Soulbust (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- In response to the articles about the selfie fatality and her other fatalities, this quote from WP:GNG will suffice: Not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
- As for the MMA controversy, the lack of any development suggests it was clickbait journalism at best. This is not a Kadabra situation in which a lawsuit was actually filed and noted on Wikinews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Seems pessimistic; the lack of any development more probably suggests Herrig's camp opted not to follow through on legal action. Not following through on that obviously wouldn't get news coverage, because it would be making a story out of literally no ocurrence. While I think VG journalism is prone to clickbait, the headlines covering this particular situation don't read as clickbait (1: MMA Star Says Mortal Kombat Likeness "Cannot Be A Coincidence"; 2: Felice Herrig: I think Cassie Cage from "Mortal Kombat" is 100% me, 3:UFC's Felice Herrig Talks About Comparison With Mortal Kombat X's Cassie Cage, 4: Felice Herrig's camp looking into possible legal action against Mortal Kombat developer). They read as pretty good encapsulations of the situation as it happened. Soulbust (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also nice highlight of "minor news stories", but it seems subjective. It's also confusing thinking. Even if you count all of the sources covering the fatality (of which there is a high amount) as minor, wouldn't the shear amount of them show a support of its notability? And then we're just talking about the fatality itself. The character herself has even greater amounts of coverage. I think the fatality is just one component of her character that was positively received. Soulbust (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also looks like there is some sort of litmus test being conducted with articles on Sektor, Skarlet, and Cyrax being merged, with Nightwolf being kept as per no consensus, and Rain currently pending. I'd probably be remiss to not mention that Cassie probably has an inherent greater notability than those characters as per being the main protagonist of MKX. But, that's irrelevant imo, because the sourcing on this article helps support notability regardless of her function as that game's main protag. Will continue to help improve article over the coming days. Soulbust (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Will continue to edit the article later. I've added reliable, relevant sourcing + context. And in addition, I've also removed any sourcing that's been tagged as unreliable as per the VG WikiProject. Where needed/applicable, I've replaced it with reliable sourcing. What I've noticed is that this article was just severely out-of-date, or at least much more out-of-date than I previously thought. Although her appearance in MK11 was added back in 2019, the relevant design and gameplay changes, as well as reception regarding her MK11 appearance was not added. Again, will continue to make changes to this article later today/this week. Soulbust (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also looks like there is some sort of litmus test being conducted with articles on Sektor, Skarlet, and Cyrax being merged, with Nightwolf being kept as per no consensus, and Rain currently pending. I'd probably be remiss to not mention that Cassie probably has an inherent greater notability than those characters as per being the main protagonist of MKX. But, that's irrelevant imo, because the sourcing on this article helps support notability regardless of her function as that game's main protag. Will continue to help improve article over the coming days. Soulbust (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Way more options exist for this than deleting, so I'm currently looking for other ways to improve the article but I think this is a strong Keep. Thanks for the Game Informer reference. Will be using it to add to this article. Soulbust (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Merge - Bulk of the content seems to be listicles and cherry-picked trivial mentions. What remains when all the gunk is removed can probably easily fit on the character list until such a time when more substantial sources can be provided. TTN (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Bulk of what content? Listicles are only included in the Reception section, and in pretty obvious situations (i.e. a publication calling Cassie nth best MK character). "Cherry-picked" is also a pretty interesting comment? Where is that coming from? How is any of it cherry-picked? I'm trying to contribute in a way that gives readers a good as possible understanding of the character's design history, gameplay features, etc. (info any other VG character article would include). Very interested, then, to get a better understanding as to what exactly is "cherry-picked trivial mentions." Because just saying that without giving context seems unhelpful here. And over the past day or so I've added more substantial content and sourcing and am still in the process of doing so. Soulbust (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Per Soulbust's arguments. Nice work on the article, by the way. If I find any good sources, I'll bring them up too. MoonJet (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Great job by Soulbust improving the article. Satellizer el Bridget 03:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Cassie is a terrible character but right now she is a face of the franchise and consequently passes notability at this time. Her tenure in the series is still young and thus leaves the door open for more future critical reception, while in contrast the four recent victims of merging have faded into relative obscurity. I did make a few tweaks and removed a nonviable VG source. sixtynine 04:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Per Soulbust Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 9 October 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 Igala people. Draftification is reasonable if someone wants to work on the draft, but otherwise it's just slow deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Igalamela Kingmakers (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 GNG or any SNG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 17:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify: Patently incomplete article. Allow time for the creating editor to wok in Draft space 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 07:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 17:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to the Igala article. For the four lines of text with two citations, it doesn't need its own article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Either Draftify or Merge, possibly to Igala people article as the Igala Kingdom article describes the kingdom as being pre-colonial. Liz 23:32, 9 October 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) 02:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Outskirts Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most of the sources used in the article are press releases and paid-for articles. Searching on google, there are barely any reliable sources discussing the company, except for more PR. Isabelle 15:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC) note: a previous AfD happened under a differente title, at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Outskirts press. Isabelle 15:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. Isabelle 15:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- delete Agree, non-PR sources not found. GNG not met. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 16:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the nomination states, this article came to AFD under a slightly different title, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Outskirts press.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 17:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)- Keep
- In the interest of full disclosure, I am the CEO of Outskirts Press. However, having been an active part of the evolving self-publishing field for the last 20 years, I hope my thoughts on this topic have some value here.
- According to the official and widely recognized whois.com registration record, OutskirtsPress.com has been a participant in the self-publishing field since September 2002, which is longer than many of the self-publishing companies listed in Knowledge (XXG)’s VTE self-publishing template including Blurb, FastPencil, Notion Press, FriesensPress, Self Publish Be Happy, Smashwords, and Wattpad.
- While it’s true Outskirts Press has three PRWeb links listed as reference sources, there are more links from legitimately recognized sources, including two articles from The Denver Business Journal, Inc. Magazine, The Globe and Mail, and Reuters. A review of the companies listed in Knowledge (XXG)’s self-publishing template reveals that the number of outside-source reference articles on most of their pages is on par with the number shown on the Outskirts Press page (once sources considered too closely associated with the subject have been removed). Which indicates that we are at least as relevant to the self-publishing field as they are.
- Often in the self-publishing industry the success of a publisher is defined not by its own newsworthy successes but by that of its authors. Outskirts Press has been a significant contributor to the self-publishing field for 20 years; publishing over 24,000 books during that time (as indicated by the Book Depository). Our authors have gone on to win hundreds of awards, have movies made from their books, make appearances on TV and countless other amazing accomplishments—all made possible by Outskirts Press. As such, it seems like our inclusion in Knowledge (XXG)’s effort to provide a compendium of knowledge on the evolving field of self-publishing is more than appropriate.
- Thank you for allowing me to participate in this conversation and I would be happy to provide any information you require in your evaluation process.~~~ JMSdesign (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing in terms of significant coverage apart from mentions from the Robert Pickton stuff, and that coverage really focuses on Pickton. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SERIESA. The scandal about Pickton's book should go in the article about him. This is otherwise promotional and the company doesn't generate nearly enough press to be notable, and then on top of that there's COI. FalconK (talk) 22:54, 9 October 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. Star Mississippi 02:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Exodus (Polish 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)
WP:NBAND. Poorly cited article, does not appear notable. 162 etc. (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poland. Spiderone 17:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose can easily be expanded from Polish sources and Polish wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Added two Polish sources from pl.wp. This deletion discussion can now be closed as badly researched. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Adding a tag or two does nothing to address the lack of notability. WP:NBAND lists twelve criteria, and this band does not appear to meet any of them. 162 etc. (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Added two Polish sources from pl.wp. This deletion discussion can now be closed as badly researched. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Here's another source. Passes the very first criterion of WP:NBAND - I haven't checked the others because that is enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:NBAND and WP:SIGCOV per the sources found above. There's a rather lengthy entry on the band in the book provided by Phil Bridger; although sadly it isn't viewable beyond snippet views in google books.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 10 October 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 07:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- GihonT (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 would appear to be a confused concatenation of various of Spotify and YouTube links. Is this young musical artist from Pakistan or from Indonesia? Repeatedly deleted (including under Draft:GihonT. At the risk of pointness WP:AFD discussion started, if only to WP:SALT it from recreation. Despite WP:INVOLVED, I am minded to close this as a speedy delete, and WP:REVDEL pretty much everything about it. User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep the links from Spotify and Youtube had the sole purpose to reference the songs that were provided in the discography, I am sure the 20 other sources provided are reliable enough. As for the nationality that I provided, this source says that his parents are from Indonesia, but he was born in Pakistan and has full Indonesian citizenship, hence he is Indonesia. Gtgamer79 (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Indonesia, and Pakistan. Spiderone 12:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - from what I can tell Gihon Marel is the common name used by this person Spiderone 18:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete WP:REFBOMBed article about a non-notable subject. The two sources associated with the statement about the subject's music distributor don't even mention him. 7 of the 16 references are just lyrics pages. I'm unable to find any significant independent/secondary coverage online using any of the subject's aliases; fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Uhai (talk · contribs) 05:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete agree with above, lots of citations for nothing much. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 2 October 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) 18:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Liam Driscoll (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 assertion of notability in the article; subject is a footballer with an unremarkable youth and amateur career. Currently, the only reference is a loan announcement in local news source Somerset Live. The only other source that I can find is a loan offer rumour in local tabloid BerkshireLive; such sources are usually not seen as evidence of notability in an AfD. Subject doesn't currently meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone 15:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Spiderone 15:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with Spiderone's analysis. I can't find additional sourcing to indicate notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Article does not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 17:02, 6 October 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) 18:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Giulio Camarlinghi (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)
De-PRODded by Das osmnezz with the rationale: "has Italian sources and played for fully pro Italian Serie C which is regarded as one of best third tiers worldwide and an Italian Serie B team which is regarded as one of best second tiers worldwide and has ongoing career"
The article previously barely scraped by old, deprecated NFOOTY guidelines because Camarlinghi made one appearance in the third-tier, professional Serie C. He has not played in the Serie B. A web search didn't turn up any WP:SIGCOV. The article would seem to fail WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. Spiderone 14:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I found a bog-standard transfer announcement in Sport Valdarno and a story about him being sent off for urinating in La Provincia. Is anything better available? Spiderone 15:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like the article had a good bit of sabotage in the history, upon review, this is equivalent of a when we have deleted a British player who played one league two game and gone into non-league. I really don't see anything that suggests he can pass GNG what-so-ever. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:30, 3 October 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 20:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- ProfitKey International (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 isn't established through the article, only sources I could find outside of Knowledge (XXG) and mirrors are CrunchBase, LinkedIn, etc. DizzyTheMan (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 2. —Talk to my owner:Online 14:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Hampshire. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Couldn't find any coverage of note either. Doesn't seem notable. Blue Edits (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I found one good reference but its an ebook. Even isolating only the first name of the company did not reveal more than 2 pages of hits on Google News, none of which met WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:42, 4 October 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 20:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Poison (German 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)
German band fails WP:BAND, unlike the American band. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support, per nom. Not notable --FMSky (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete no coverage in reliable sources. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:53, 9 October 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. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 15:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Peter Aman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a political figure notable only as a non-winning candidate for mayor of a city. As always, candidates do not get Knowledge (XXG) articles just for being candidates -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and a candidate must either (a) demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons, or (b) show a credible reason why his candidacy should be seen as much more special than most other people's candidacies. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (his own LinkedIn, the county elections office) with the purely run of the mill volume and depth local coverage that any mayoral candidate would merely be expected to have in their local media. Nothing here is "inherently" notable at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete failed political candidate, routine employment history otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete did not win the 2017 Atlanta mayoral election. Coverage does not indicate anything special or unique about his candidacy. --Enos733 (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: As User Enos733 said, not notable as he didn't win the election. Contributor008 (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:NPOL outright. The article also fails WP:GNG. There was some significant coverage in Creative Loafing and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, both of which did go into some detail about him, but outside of those two pieces I can't find any significant third-party coverage, and WP:GNG requires multiple of such references; two doesn't cut it. When you take into account that these are routine candidate pieces from local news sources during an election cycle, it further diminishes the significance of these two references. Per Knowledge (XXG):Run-of-the-mill#Political candidates, this coverage is routine and to be expected, and is not something that shows notability. - Aoidh (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete It has fail GNG. Gurin Hawa Mota (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Toshikenan, see investigation)- Delete I agree with the nomination and all the delete comments. Fifthapril (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Per above , not notable. Alex-h (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete WP:SNOW Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 9 October 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) 12:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nila (character) (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)
Fictional character with just one film appearance (2.0 (film)). Does not meet WP:GNG as it lacks independent coverage in reliable sources including enough real-world/out-of-universe perspective. Most of the content is sourced from interviews/primary sources which do not establish notability.
Stand-alone article is not warranted in any case per WP:NOPAGE as it can be covered in the film article. Blazin777 (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Spiderone 13:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @Blazin777:, I understand your point that only one film of the character made you feel that the it is not suitable of having a Knowledge (XXG) page. But the fact is it is part of a film series and it may significantly have a future apperance in the project as part of the film series/cinematic universe. Also may I know why the Appearance part of the song is removed from the page (since that added more importantance to the character in connection with the protagonist)
- Please provide your view and rationale.
- Thank you. 456legend(talk) 15:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Not enough to show the character is notable. Need to have secondary sources that are focused on the character, not the people playing that character. Has only appeared in one film. Not enough to show independent notability. Ravensfire (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: okay fine sir. I understood the reason. Delete it. I have no points to put in further. Thank you
- Delete I would have usually advocated a redirect but Nila is too common of a character name for this. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Fictional character that has only appeared in a single film, and has no sources that would indicate that she is notable enough to warrant an individual article. As mentioned above, Nila is too common of a name for multiple fictional characters for a Redirect to be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass real world notability.Onel5969 10:11, 3 October 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 20:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- BrandX.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Company which fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, the only coverage available consists of directory listings and routine announcements in unreliable trade publications. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails general notability. The two references are promotional interviews rather than independent significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - The only references I can find the meet WP:ORGCRIT are ones about the individual brands and only mention the parent (BrandX) in passing as the owner. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 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 11:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Jordan Pettigrew (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)
WP:N. He hasn't played at a fully-professional level in Scotland - the highest league level he has played in is Scottish League Two, the fourth tier of the Scottish football league system. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Spiderone 11:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Whether he has played professionally or not is irrelevant. He hasn't, but NFOOTY is no longer in force, so it's beside the point. However, I can't find enough significant coverage of this player. His "ongoing career" in Scottish non league is also completely irrelevant to establishing notability. This source mentions Pettigrew a few times but also quotes him and his employers quite heavily, so I'm not sure. Regardless, we need more to demonstrate notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to get off topic, but I don't get involved in deletion discussions very often. How can a major professional sport not have a guideline for deciding who or what is notable? This is absurd. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- It all comes under SPORTCRIT and BASIC now, but I don't know the ins and outs of why that decision was made. GiantSnowman could possibly point you in the right direction. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, NFOOTBALL has been abolished following a RFC. GiantSnowman 09:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- It all comes under SPORTCRIT and BASIC now, but I don't know the ins and outs of why that decision was made. GiantSnowman could possibly point you in the right direction. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to get off topic, but I don't get involved in deletion discussions very often. How can a major professional sport not have a guideline for deciding who or what is notable? This is absurd. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:26, 3 October 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 11:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Andrei Bondar (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. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 10:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I found a trivial mention in RFS but not much else Spiderone 12:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:16, 4 October 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 11:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Kirill Korepov (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. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 10:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 10:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom does not meet GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 9 October 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 11:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Vladislav Belyayev (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. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 10:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 10:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 9 October 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) 10:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ivan Mishukov (footballer) (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)
Another semi-pro footballer with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC provided. Searches of "Иван Мишуков" (including in conjunction with "Торпедо", his current club) in multiple search engines failed to yield even one instance of significant coverage. Closest thing is Live Journal, which can be dismissed as it's a social media site so is excluded from WP:RS. Spiderone 09:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone 09:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar.Onel5969 10:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 9 October 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) 10:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nikita Gloydman (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)
Semi-pro with no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Searches of "Никита Глойдман" in multiple search engines did not yield any significant coverage. Best source I can find is Tula Sport which is both local and trivial. Spiderone 09:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone 09:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar.Onel5969 10:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:37, 9 October 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) 10:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Aleksei Usanov (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)
Semi-pro footballer with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Sent to draft by User:Onel5969 but moved back with no significant improvement. Would have failed the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline as well.
Russian searches in Google News and DDG yielded nothing useful. Spiderone 09:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone 09:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - does not meet GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 10:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails the WP:GNG. Fifthapril (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:37, 9 October 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) 10:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Filipp Marayev (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)
PROD rationale by User:Jogurney Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Contested with comment has Russian sources and played in fully pro Russian third tier and has ongoing career which is a reference to the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline, which has been redundant for several months now. Interestingly, the Russian third tier was removed from WP:FPL after strong consensus so the PROD removal comment is wrong on at least two counts. The best sources on him are the local news articles Online Vologda and Vologda Poisk but neither article is substantial in terms of coverage. Routine injury and transfer announcements are almost always dismissed at football AfDs. Spiderone 09:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone 09:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar.Onel5969 10:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Article fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:24, 3 October 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) 10:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Jota Agostinho (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)
Played one professional game then played as an amateur for the rest of his career. No luck finding anything under "Jota Agostinho" and searching "Jota" in conjunction with the clubs that he played for doesn't yield anything useful either. Plenty of coverage on similarly-named players like Jota (footballer, born 1999), Jota Gonçalves and Diogo Jota but nothing about this one. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG as far as I can see. Spiderone 08:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone 08:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:41, 4 October 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 Smiling Friends. ✗plicit 11:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Desmond's Big Day Out (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 cannot see in any way how this episode is notable. Bubbleblabber.com is an unreliable source (see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Young Blood, Old Souls) and the Collider review could probably easily fit into the main Smiling Friends article. I'd suggest a redirect to the main series article. wizzito | say hello! 08:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. wizzito | say hello! 08:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Smiling Friends - The plot summary is identical to the summary of the episode that already exists at the main page. The reception section consists of one non-reliable source, and one article that discusses the entirety of the first season as a whole that, while probably being an OK source to use on the main series page, does not demonstrate any particular notability for this episode specifically that would justify splitting it out into its own article. Searching for additional sources brings up similar articles - mentions of it in articles that talk about the entirety of the series, but nothing in-depth about it, specifically, that would suggest that a split is warranted. Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect - even the page creator knew this was unlikely to be notable, if this edit summary is any indication. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 3 October 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 07:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Raise5 (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 meeting WP:GNG. The sources are scarce, self-referencing is too heavy (50% references go to raise5 website). Several brief mentions in huffpost are not enough too. Assirian cat (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- raise5 website now appears to be of another company. its says: Raise5.com is a data-driven platform which provides better online shopping experience. The wikipedia page says: Raise5 is an organization that allows individuals and groups to fundraise for charities and non-profits through micro-volunteering. Assirian cat (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Spiderone 13:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Article is written from primary sources. Nothing notable found, not GNG. --YouVeNeverSeenBetter (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Looking at Wayback machine, the website of the Raise5 described in this article was still showing people offering services until mid 2017, when it disappeared, then a distinct shopping site with a different logo commenced with their website in April 2019. The former start-up won a "Screw Business As Usual" start-up competition in 2012, rewarded by an African trip the following year with Richard Branson , but I don't think that or the associated start-up publicity is evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 11:04, 2 October 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 04:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Model-Glue (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 framework by any means. Found one mention on Google Books (which was written by its creators) and a single TechRepublic article from 2006. Lacks independent, significant coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Internet, and Software. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete the notability is not established. Searching for reliable sources will not help. --Assirian cat (talk) 10:14, 25 September 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 07:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:PROMO. Seems like someone just wrote their own framework and tossed up an article to help get the word out. — HelloAnnyong 04:08, 5 October 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 per WP:CSK#4. ✗plicit 23:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Somashekhar SP (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)
My BFORE search found ,This doctor does not satisfy WP:GNG. and it is an advertisement more than an article. Maximum references used are self published. NextStepfor (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC) — NextStepfor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Medicine, and India. NextStepfor (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Karnataka. Spiderone 07:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets criteria 8 of WP:NACADEMIC. Reasonable number of citations (999 on ResearchGate). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:25, 2 October 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) 10:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Athanasios Raptis (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 more than a couple namechecks in match reports, fails GNG. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of significant coverage. Not okay to have BLPs sourced only to databases. Ovinus (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The article is in a very bad shape. It was created in 2013 and no information has been added since then. Fifthapril (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:38, 9 October 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 05:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- BPM Model 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)
WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources that were present were either primary or school/college databases. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Kerala. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I'd expect to find something under Google Scholar for a Model School. There are none per my search. 174.212.228.160 (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Unable to find independent significant coverage. Ovinus (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete — tagged it for speedy delete once. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 13:37, 3 October 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 03:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Rodney Coates (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)
American football player that does not meet WP:GNG. He is undrafted and though he's been signed by the Seahawks, he has yet to play a single NFL game. The coverage that exists is routine (e.g. game reports from his time at West Florida) and not sustained, in-depth coverage of Coates. Pichpich (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
DeleteKeep -Doesn't meet WP:GNG Couldn't find any sources either, and the source used is also a trivial mention that dissatisfies WP:SPORTCRITKeep per the sources belowVTVL (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Alabama. Spiderone 07:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I found several sources that discuss him in detail dating back to 2017 Alvaldi (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets GNG per Alvaldi. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets GNG, article has been improved significantly with more sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Alvaldi's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep coverage provided in article surpassess WP:GNG and is far more than so-called "routine coverage" with several feature articles covering hte subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep passes GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Meets GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:38, 9 October 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. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Detention (2003 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. Found only one review on Rotten Tomatoes. Needs two or more reviews in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: There is a TV Guide review and a Video Business review. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Would keep but that plot looks copied from a box. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, review at RT (as mentioned by nominator) and a second at TV Guide (as mentioned by Somebodyodkfkdt). Plot is almost 100% copied from IMdB, and needs to be rewritten. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- I withdraw nomination per consensus and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 19:33, 2 October 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. Star Mississippi 02:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Tinci Materials (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 company. Sources cited are routine business reporting and passing mentions. Search finds only more of the same, as well as the usual social media, directory, etc. listings, nothing even approaching RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and China. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- I see some coverage in Chinese-language sources: . This is what I found with a quick search; a more thorough search for the Chinese name "天赐材料" might find more. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not refer to third-party significant coverage of the company. It presents what the company says about itself, which does not establish corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 08:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- "Tinci Materials analyst reports". Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
This search page lists a large number of analyst reports about Tinci Materials.
From Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.
- Han, Chen 韩晨 (2021-08-23). "天赐材料: 一体化布局降本增利,正极产能稳步扩张" (PDF). Southwest Securities 西南证券 (in Chinese). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
The analyst report notes from Google Translate: "Profit forecast and investment advice. The company's electrolyte will continue to maintain rapid growth, while the production capacity reserves are abundant, The cathode material business will become a new growth point for the business in the long run, optimize the company's product structure, and further enhance the company's profitability. The compound growth rate of the company's total revenue in the next three years is 54%. Considering the company's leading electrolyte status, and the future development of the company's new business, we give the company 80 times PE in 2021, the target price is 167.20 yuan. Initial coverage with a "buy" rating. Risk warning: the risk of the company's production capacity not being released as scheduled ..."
- "天賜材料增長勁 大行齊唱好" . Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). 2021-08-27. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
The article notes from Google Translate: "Tinci Materials (002709.SZ), the world's largest electrolyte manufacturer, reported stronger than expected results in the first half of the year, and continued to maintain high growth in its guidance for the third quarter. At the same time, it has received orders from many major manufacturers. After the results were announced, major banks worked together to hold and sing in unison that it is good. Tianci Materials was established in 2000 and entered the lithium ion electrolyte business in 2005. It is the largest electrolyte supplier of the battery leader CATL (300750.SZ), and is also the biggest competitor of CATL"
- "西南证券给予天赐材料买入评级,高毛利水平延续,关注22H2产能释放" . National Business Daily (in Chinese). 2022-09-02. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
The article notes from Google Translate: "Southwest Securities released a research report on September 2, saying that it gave Tianci Materials (002709.SZ, latest price: 47.14 yuan) a buy rating. The reasons for the rating mainly include: 1) The high gross profit level of electrolytes continues; 2) The expansion of iron phosphate production has accelerated, and sales have increased significantly; 3) The prices of daily chemical materials and special chemical raw materials have risen, and the gross profit margin has been under pressure. Risk warning: The production capacity is less than expected, the downstream demand is less than expected, the industry overcapacity leads to intensified market competition, and policy risks."
- Peng, Guangchun 彭广春 (2022-01-21). "天赐材料(002709):盈利持续高企 一体化+新一代锂盐巩固竞争优势" (in Chinese). Huachuang Securities. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26 – via Sina Corporation.
The analyst report notes: "Considering that the company is a global electrolyte leader, and the production capacity of the key additive lithium hexafluorophosphate continues to be released and self-supplied, the company's performance is expected to increase significantly. Considering the valuation of comparable companies, we give the company 40 times PE in 2022, corresponding to the target price of 196.8 yuan, and maintain the "strong push" rating. Risk warning: global sales of new energy vehicles are lower than expected, and electrolyte prices have fallen."
- Barns, Greg (June–July 2019). "Oz Minerals earns in from Cassini Resources at West Musgrave Project". Resource World Magazine. Vol. 17, no. 4. p. 33. Retrieved 2022-09-26 – via Google Books.
The article notes: "But not only has Cassini Resources attracted OZ Minerals to the West Musgrave Project, it also now has on its books Hong Kong-based Tinci (HK) Limited, a 100% subsidiary of Guangzhou Tinci Materials Technology. Tinci Materials is one of China's largest lithium-ion battery electrolyte manufacturers and is currently conducting a feasibility study for the production of high-quality nickel sulphate from nickel sulphide concentrate for the battery industry. Tinci participated in a recent AUD $7M placement to Asian investors."
- Tang, Shihua (2021-08-24). Laine, Emmi; Xiao, Yi (eds.). "China's Tinci Surges to All-Time High After USD813 Million Plan to Hike Battery Materials Output". Yicai Global. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
The article notes: "Tinci is a big provider of lithium hexafluorophosphate, a core material of battery electrolytes. ... Tinci had a 32 percent market share of battery electrolytes in China, and a 20 percent market share in the world as of December 2020, according to public information. The company's capacity was 106,000 tons of lithium-ion battery electrolytes, but it was expanding it by 350,000 tons at that time."
- Liu, Xing 刘幸; Chen, Youzi 陈忧子 (2021-11-13). Wu, 吴诗航 Shihang (ed.). "穗7家企业入选"全国制造业单项冠军"名单" . Guangzhou Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-20. Retrieved 2022-09-26 – via Nanfang Daily.
The article notes from Google Translate: "Guangzhou Tinci High-tech Materials Co., Ltd. is the only company at home and abroad with the entire industry chain of lithium-ion battery electrolyte, the only designated supplier of Tesla in the world, and the main supplier of electrolyte in the Ningde era. Its products are exported to South Korea, Japan, and the United States. and many other countries. Last year, Tinci Materials had a global market share of 22% and a domestic market share of 32%."
- Zhang, Yi 张艺 (2022-06-10). ""电解液一哥"天赐材料推最高5亿元回购计划,能重返千亿市值吗?" . Jiemian (in Chinese). Shanghai United Media Group. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
The article notes from Google Translate: "Since then, the performance of Tinci Materials has continued to grow rapidly, but the stock price has been stagnant. ... However, the market value was cut in half in half a year, and it fell to a market value of 100 billion. What is the reason? The growth of Tianci Materials is inseparable from the rise of the "Ning Wang" Ningde era. Last year's annual report showed that about 5.6 billion yuan in sales revenue of Tinci Materials came from CATL, accounting for half of the annual revenue. In 2020, the sales volume of Tinci Materials' largest customer is only over 1 billion yuan, and its revenue accounts for 25.56%. Therefore, every move in the Ningde era also affects the heaven-sent materials that are deeply bound to it. In the first quarter of this year, the performance of CATL declined."
- "Tinci Materials analyst reports". Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to evaluate the sources Cunard identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I do not think that we should keep articles on the basis of analyst reports, as these reports serve only to communicate financial projections and price an equity and do not generally demonstrate social importance of the subject; Cunard is completely wrong about this. However, the company is WP:LISTED and seems to have reliable sources that talk about it; I also prefer to err on the side of caution when considering foreign companies for which sourcing is harder and Knowledge (XXG) page creation for SEO is less likely. The article is weak though, and it needs to concentrate on more than just the financial history of the company. FalconK (talk) 22:52, 9 October 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. Star Mississippi 02:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sundial Collective (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. The Per WP:AUD, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability
. I am generally unable to find coverage of this company outside of local media; the sources in this article include small local newspaper Redding Record Searchlight and local television station KRCR-TV, and I'm not able to find coverage of this business outside of exclusively local stations and a trivial mention in a single trade journals (and, per WP:ORGIND there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability
). Because this fails WP:NCORP, and WP:ORGCRIT notes that NCORP establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability
than we may see in other contexts, this should be deleted for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete There could be more coverage as this store is being bought by a local tribal group. Only one maybe two of the sources are good enough to establish GNG.
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
USA Today (redding.com) | Author is not connected to the topic | Knowledge (XXG):Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Unz | Article has only passing mention | ✘ No |
USA Today (redding.com) | Article is a video about this location by an established reporter | Knowledge (XXG):Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Unz | ~ Video is a very brief interview with the owner but does not go in depth, honestly this is a bit of a gray area for me | ~ Partial |
ABC Affiliate (KRCR) | Author is established journalist | ] | ~ Video is about one minute long and talks about the opening of the store, does not go in depth but has interviews with the general manager | ~ Partial |
ABC Affiliate (KRCR) | Author is established journalist and is not the same author as previous article from this source | ] | Article covers this store being bought by a local tribal group and goes in more depth than the previous article | ✔ Yes |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
Dr vulpes 03:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dr vulpes: Thank you for the source assessment table. Is there a reason you're applying GNG rather than NCORP here? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, it's just what the template popped out, let me go back and see if it'll do SNG. Sorry if it caused any confusion, I completely agree with your assessment and nomination. The only reason I mentioned that there could be more coverage was incase someone had access to like a tribal newspaper that isn't online or something. Dr vulpes 04:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- That makes sense. With respect to tables, there is {{ORGCRIT assess table}}, but it's really heavy to use don't think that there's anything akin to the SA Table Generator script that currently works on it. Now that I'm thinking about it, I might have to try to create a modified version of that to work better with ORGCRIT. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's funny you mention that I was cleaning up after dinner and was thinking the same thing. It would be really helpful for AfDs. Dr vulpes 04:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- That makes sense. With respect to tables, there is {{ORGCRIT assess table}}, but it's really heavy to use don't think that there's anything akin to the SA Table Generator script that currently works on it. Now that I'm thinking about it, I might have to try to create a modified version of that to work better with ORGCRIT. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, it's just what the template popped out, let me go back and see if it'll do SNG. Sorry if it caused any confusion, I completely agree with your assessment and nomination. The only reason I mentioned that there could be more coverage was incase someone had access to like a tribal newspaper that isn't online or something. Dr vulpes 04:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment as nom. I think that the following NCORP Assessment Table might clarify some of the ambiguity with respect to the sources, which include another source I was able to find online:
NCORP table | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On top of the above, even if these sources were enough to contribute towards notability, we're still dealing with a substantial WP:AUD problem inasmuch as these are both subregional (i.e. local) publications. I truly can't find any coverage of this entity even in broader regional media, which is the death knell for the article subject's notability in my view. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT per the source analysis above.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 10 October 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.