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 11:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Cottrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet the standards required by WP:BIO. Many of the references aren't even about him but about non-notable companies. Him being at one single forum according to the source doesn't mean he is notable. Imcdc (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any independent sources that cover him. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or (as best I can tell) any of the many flavors of WP:NBIO. Ajpolino (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only bit I found was an SEC document that Anonymizer had one round of venture investment around 2004, under a million dollars. Given the other names involved share his family name, I would guess just another kid who started a company as a student in the bubble, only to run out of cash in the great recession. There is a mention in Mixmaster anonymous remailer, which article is also very thin. So not much to merge. W Nowicki (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jamie_Lee_Curtis#Personal_life. Editors may merge content from the article's history at their discretion. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Guest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't think Guest is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. [double vote] 10 of the 11 sources used in the article mention Jamie Lee Curtis (Guest's mother) in the headline, and only 3 of those headlines use Guest's name. The other source is just about British titles. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 12:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC) Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Jamie_Lee_Curtis#Personal_life. Based on the sources in the article and sources I found, e.g. Jamie Lee Curtis and Her Daughter Speak About Ruby's Journey Coming Out as Trans (People, October 2021), (USA Today, October 2021), WP:BLP1E appears to support not having a standalone article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jamie_Lee_Curtis#Personal_life, per Beccaynr. My interpretation of WP:BLP1E is in line with their assessment. A fraction of this article could justifiably be merged to that section of Curtis' article, though certainly not all of it. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toaero UAV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article covers a category of products from a specific manufacturer in a way that runs afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG; the page essentially reads like a product line directory. Through searching I have not found evidence that either the product line or the manufacturer, Tianjin Toaero Science and Technology Co., pass WP:SIGCOV. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Did a search and after this page results were very sparse; seems the products exist in specialised catalogues but nothing approaching the mainstream coverage needed for notability, for the firm or its products.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:C1CA:C8E0:1243:B0C1 (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can't find significant coverage of this line of UAVs. Ajpolino (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The article notes, "Toaero UAVs are Chinese UAVs developed by Tianjin Toaero Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (Toaero, 天津中翔腾航科技有限公司) for various applications such as aerial cinematography, photography, and survey missions."

  I was unable to find significant coverage about the subject in my searches for sources. The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Substantial revision from page creator means case made for deletion no longer remains. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheries (Statute Law Revision) Act 1956 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There's no context within the article here noting the significance or otherwise of this Act, and few links to this article other than general indexes of legislation. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Irish fisheries law, the new version of this article, which definately satisfies GNG. The significance of the Act is that it amended large chunks of the law relating to fisheries, which were then consolidated into large chunks of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959, and therefore constitutes a large chunk of the law relating to fisheries. James500 (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw: A good outcome to a proposal for deletion! Good work improving it, I would just add that not every statute need by linked, as per WP:REDNO. — Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Irish fisheries law title/article (and keep/redirect Fisheries (Statute Law Revision) Act 1956 there). Per James500 and note from nom above. (Personally I think the nominator could close this AfD themselves. Given the withdrawal, WP:NACAFD and the now somewhat confusing situation with the AfD tags...) Guliolopez (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Irish fisheries law#History in the Republic of Ireland. Sandstein 10:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheries (Statute Law Revision) Act 1949 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There's no context within the article here noting the significance or otherwise of this Act, and few links to this article other than general indexes of legislation. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect - Merge (the content) and redirect (the title) to the relevant section of the (new) Irish fisheries law article. Guliolopez (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The content has already been merged to Irish fisheries law#History in the Republic of Ireland. The page title can now be redirected. The significance of the Act is that it amended large chunks of the law relating to fisheries, which were then consolidated into large chunks of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959, and therefore constitutes a large chunk of the law relating to fisheries.James500 (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted under WP:A11 by User:Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mosha Dibanisa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Added one decent source myself, failed to find anything else. Non-notable footballer who clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No point in sending to draft or redirecting. Playing in the Telkom Knockout is enough to escape WP:A7 but will need more coverage and better coverage to avoid deletion at AfD, in my view. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted under WP:A7 by User:Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siphokuhle Naartjies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I have added the only decent reference that I can find but it's not enough, in my view. Fails WP:GNG and I think this fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This was already WP:A7 deleted, I assume rendering the rest of this AfD as irrelevant. GauchoDude (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Ataş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Similar case to Büşra Demirörs and many others that have followed. The sources in the article and the ones that I have found in a WP:BEFORE search provide only trivial mentions of Ataş, in fact all only mention her once in a list of footballers and none provide any further info that we can use. Google searches and a Turkish source search yield nothing better than Haber7 and TRT Spor, which both only mention her once in passing. The article currently contains a stats database and two other passing mentions. GNG and WP:BASIC are crystal clear in saying that trivial mentions, on their own, are insufficient. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, fails WP:NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coverage in sources is insufficient to meet GNG Avilich (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Nelson Anes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Despite technically having 3 appearances, his professional career only lasted 36 mins with Football Database not having any appearances at all for him. This provides a presumption that the footballer will pass WP:GNG but no guarantee, as numerous previous AfDs of a similar nature have established. Google News contains 3 completely trivial mentions and the results of an Indonesian source search yield nothing better. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 07:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and GS. With these marginal NFOOTY passes, I always try to think if they justify drafting but that needs confidence about the subject's future potential. There is none in this case and the player lacks SIGCOV so the article fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GiantSnowman's consensus. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. WP:NSPORT, which WP:NFOOTBALL is part of, is pretty clear on that all subjects must meet the general notability guideline, regardless of them passing a SNG. Alvaldi (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete short career insufficient for establishing notability Avilich (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable per the reasoning of GiantSnowman. --Lockley (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The unanimous consensus is to keep, as the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 07:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Interoperability of Tactical Command and Control Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'll take a look. jp×g 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; there seem to be a good number of citable sources; a couple IEEE papers, DTIC entries (1 2, 3). jp×g 20:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did a bit of poking around and it looks like several sources mention JINTACCS. Added one with a bit of info to the article. I think if anyone speaks military acronym (and understands what MTFs are), they could relatively easily add more to the article. The topic is just a bit beyond me. Ajpolino (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Solidly verifiable but the organization does not look notable to me. --Lockley (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per JPxG's work above, I feel subject can be seen to have a strong case for notability, as it appears to precipitate a significant amount of research and other academic coverage. Ideally some of these sources and other citations could be properly incorporated into the article some time in the future. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the sources show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Frieda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. The references are just interviews with him which are not really independent. His acting career doesn't seem significant enough a separate article. Imcdc (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an actor he has received some coverage for his casting in particular films (like [1]) but coverage of his career as a restaurateur is more substantive (like [2] and [3]). I think there's probably enough to get him over the line. As has been flogged to death elsewhere, the idea that interviews are not independent of their interviewees is a bit silly. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as combined coverage is just enough for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, only had a significant role in a single film. The Guardian article is just ordinary news and is not totally independent since much of the coverage is actually quotes by him. The Independent piece mentions him in passing since he's not the main subject of the article. Notability not established with substantial coverage. Avilich (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as clearly intended by Geschichte. Graham87 14:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur L. White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject is quite lacking in notability. The presumed notability of the piece appears to be the notability of the subject's notable grandparent and their role as the author of a biography of the same grandparent - however, neither of these things really conveys notability. There is otherwise little to no sourcing or evidence of notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @78.26: Question is this person notable? Catfurball (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. He was awarded an honorary doctorate by Andrews University, an Adventist institution, which may be a pass of criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). I don't see anything by him on Google Scholar. For works by him, see this Library of Congress search. This biography would be helpful, but does not seem to be avauilable online: Nix, James R; Folkenberg, Robert; Blincoe, Thomas H (1991). Life sketch of Elder Arthur L. White: read at his memorial service, Yountville, California, January 19, 1991. OCLC 1201196107.. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Eastmain's comment above, I was able to confirm the point about the honorary degree through a primary source, which I've since added to that section of the article. I believe this constitutes an acceptable fulfillment of Criteria 1(e) of WP:PROF. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NPROF criteria 1, also worldcat shows 920 library holdings which indicates that his works have been widely reviewed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as he was awarded an honorary degree.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 . Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Service Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sole reference only contains a brief mention of subject. Imcdc (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the "sole reference" is wholly focused on the subject and a lawsuit filed by the company that owns the technology in order to protect its related IP. Not sure how the nominator got "brief mention". There are also a number of book and news references. I'm curious as to what the nominator's WP:BEFORE activities turned up. I don't see any additional tags on the article and the latest discussion on the talk page is from 2006. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Design (magazine)(version 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete - No indication of notability, that it meets WP:GNG, Wikipedia: Notability (Media), or has WP:SIGCOV. The Reuters article, which is the only reliable, independent news source cited in the page during the nomination's initiation, does not mention the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm confused. It looks like Electronic Design (magazine) was split into that article and Electronic Design (magazine)(version 2) in June? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the history here @Anthony Appleyard: it looks like you split this after being asked here? Was this intended to be a temporary page? I presume you didn't intend to have two separate articles covering this magazine? Ajpolino (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino, not sure why there is a second article of the same subject. I see there was a proposed merge, however nothing has sufficed; I suggest merging or removing one of the articles as there cannot be two duplicate subjects in the articlespace. Multi7001 (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Spiderone and Multi7001: I notiuced that Electronic Design (magazine) was sitting over a parallel deleted version, so I extracted the deleted version out from under to Electronic Design (magazine)(version 2). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Saint-Sauveur, Quebec. ✗plicit 00:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Saint-Sauveur, Quebec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced and incomplete list of non-notable mayors of a small town. The value in keeping such a list vests in the ability to complete it, and a list that only includes the three most recent mayors while leaving out everybody who came before 2002 doesn't serve any purpose -- and Saint-Sauveur is a small town with a population of only around 9K, so its mayors aren't likely to clear WP:NPOL for the purposes of getting their own standalone articles to link. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The list only starts in 2002 because Saint-Sauveur was only created in 2002. Before then it was two separate municipalities, the village of Saint-Sauveur-des-Monts and the parish municipality of Saint-Sauveur, which each had their own councils and mayor. The town is bigger than the population count would suggest because of ski-related tourism during the winter and shopping at the town's many outlet stores year round. The town's church (also called Saint-Sauveur-des-Monts) does a lot of weddings for out-of-town couples. This resource could be useful for creating lists of mayors for the two predecessor municipalities. It may be helpful to think of the former parish municipality as a donut and the former village as the donut hole. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Saint-Sauveur, Quebec. Encyclopedic topic, but I think for length purposes it's okay to handle this in the main city article. Can be split out again in years once the list gets longer. Hog Farm _Talk 20:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Saint-Sauveur, Quebec. Probably struggles to meet WP:LISTN and is too small for a stand-alone article but the information should be retained. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Saint-Sauveur, Quebec. If/once list gets too big it can be split. --Enos733 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Templeton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An autobiography created by the subject himself, Christopher Templeton, the only reference here that actually mentions Templeton appears to be the first reference which was uploaded by Templeton himself to PRX. The subject may be notable but there are no reliable sources here to show it. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It appears that BEFORE has not been done; the subject is indeed notable having had his work performed on the BBC World Service and reviewed in national newspapers; and having been the subject and interviewee of a World Service episode. The content of the article is reasonable (albeit the section on Manuel Salazar needs trimming, given that we have a separate article on him). Deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pigsonthewing The plays on the BBC World Service weren't written by Templeton. According to the PRX listings, he produced/directed them, but I can't find any non-SPS to support that (the PRX links are material that Templeton himself uploaded to PRX, so the credits are ones he provided). The Independent review doesn't mention him at all, just the play's author. Regarding being the subject of a World Service episode, what's that referring to? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Entries in the Radio Times, searchable online; which also support the former point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Pigsonthewing. ---✨LazyManiik✨ 13:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG per Andy's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Rahmat Ali Wagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability in article or online. Article already deleted as A7 speedy but recreated, perhaps better to have a full AfD. Fram (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't see anything by him in Google Scholar. Searching just for "RA Wagan" gives me a different academic, https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=tU62hEwAAAAJ&hl=en Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nominator, I could not find anything to establish GNG or NSCHOLAR when I tagged the earlier deleted version A7 JW 1961 ^Talk 19:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The references in the article are directory listings/advertisements, and I can find nothing better. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as those above - I can't find anything to show any notability. KylieTastic (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 00:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Chain Quality Indicator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable industry standard, does not appear to meet WP:GNG - references are incidental, not significant coverage. Does not inherit notability from broader topic of cold chain, which is certainly notable. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessence Editions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to be notable per WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from the company's books, some of which may be notable. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die or 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. — Hunter Kahn 20:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In looking at google books they publish a more than just the 1001 series, including some academic reference works.4meter4 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not suitable for a redirect as they have published more than one work/series, so redirecting to any one work would not be correct. No indication of any significant coverage of the company itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 00:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PolicyNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to meet any notability standard, including WP:GNG. Cannot find reliable sources, especially independent ones. Additionally, WP:TNT applies due to absence of NPOV. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Due to being an advert article about a topic that clearly doesn't lacks any kind of notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mikey D#Discography. Citing concerns on possible recreation by various IP users, anyone is free to request the target for protection at the WP:RFPP. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better Late Than Never: In Memory of Paul C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. One of three albums recently created for this artist, all of which have next to no sourcing, and for which no good sources have been found – the article creator has admitted on my talk page that they can't find any good sources for these records either. However, attempts to redirect them to the artist (whose article is also very poorly sourced) have been reverted because the article creator is unwilling to let them go, so I am bringing them to AfD as a last resort to get consensus. Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC) Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: the article creator has now been indefinitely blocked as a result of other edits they have made, but they have still reverted previously from an IP address, so this AfD should still go ahead. Richard3120 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mikey D and protect from recreation. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanlam Challenge Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable and short lived set of friendly games. Different match reports mention different versions of the sponsor name. Google searches not finding any substantial coverage about the competition only individual match reports of friendlies with passing mentions. noq (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Fails WP:NRIVALRY for me as there's not enough coverage of the rivalry between the sides, and personally I don't there's any at all. Just a set of friendly matches. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I do not think there is evidence of notability and would be inclined to support the view expressed by others that these were just a series of friendlies. The Saracens F.C. article has an "International relationships" section - these matches are not currently mentioned there, but perhaps they could be and this would probably be sufficient coverage. Dunarc (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard A Yurash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

After seeing the article pop up on my watchlist, I looked for sources about him and couldn't find anything meaningful in Google or in Newspapers.com, either with or without the middle initial. After reading the article more carefully, it's essentially a summary of the history of the development of CMOS integrated circuits that has almost nothing to do with the role Yurash may have played.

Sources 1-10 are entirely about the big names in Silicon Valley, including references that are the Wikipedia articles for Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore and Andrew Grove (sources 1, 7 and 9), biographies of these individuals (sources 2, 8 and 10), articles about the history of integrated circuits (sources 3 and 4) and details about Fairchild Semiconductor where he is said to have worked (sources 5 and 6). None of these references mention Yurash and the only other place he appears in Wikipedia is being name-checked as an alumnus of Fairchild Semiconductor.

Sources 11 through 14 are not linked to online sources, so I can't check them, but a review of the context of the references doesn't add much. Source 11 from Forbes Greatest Technology Stories is about a task assigned to Andy Grove. Sources 12 through 14 are scientific articles, of which 12 and 13 don't list Yurash as an author, while 14 seems to be a paper he wrote. The "Early Life" section is entirely unsourced, and I couldn't find much to add that would be in-depth coverage about him.

The main author of the article is User:Syurash1, which may well be a WP:COI issue as evidenced by the fact that the editor's entire edit histor y revolves around this article.

There is nothing here that would make Bernard A Yurash notable. Alansohn (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia has poor coverage of significant technology developments that take place in industry because they are usually almost invisible to us. Unlike the case of academic research, innovations in industrial labs don't leave a trail of publications; industrial researchers don't cite each other's papers, they just incorporate them into their work. Historians of technology write very little about the people involved. In this case there are no independent sources available. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very little in the way of independent secondary sources. The Mercury News obit is good, but aside from that, I see a trivial mention at [4], and... that's it? Most of the references on the page don't mention him. Danstronger (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Aajakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the sources establish any significant coverage for the subject. Citation 7 is primary and 9 and 10 are not authoritative. All of these do contain things on his protests, however, they do not go into much detail and do not talk about him specifically. Fails WP:GNG. (I have removed some unsuitable sources like tweets. If anyone thinks that this was incorrect, please see this version). RealKnockout (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RealKnockout (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. RealKnockout (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RealKnockout (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG.Advait (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable YouTuber. Only 250K subscribers which is barely significant, considering the claim to fame. Mar4d (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aajakia did hold public office, but his office was less than of a city, meaning it falls short of "international, national, or state/province–wide" requirement in WP:POLITICIAN. He doesn't seem to meet GNG and none of the sources used in the article give Aajakia himself significant coverage.VR _talk 03:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify to Draft:Carlo Romeo. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Romeo (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This seems to have been an injudicious AFC acceptance. Since a reviewer has accepted it I believe we must now go through the AfD process to decide its fate. I suggest draftification since it has promise, but the referencing is very poor and very primary. It may prove that the subject is WP:ROTM, but this is likely better determined after a further run through AFC to seek to insist on better sourcing Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or Delete. This person may be notable, but I couldn't find any independent coverage in a WP:BEFORE search, and this is currently sourced entirely to the organisations he's worked for, his profiles on various sites and a promotional interview for a book he wrote. The article is also written like a CV and needs a complete rewrite for tone. IMO this should have been declined at AFC. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The disambiguation is unnecessary. If this is kept, it should be moved to Carlo Romeo. If it is draftified, it should be moved to Draft:Carlo Romeo. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There were 10 sources when this was nominated for deletion, but are now 18 sources, so that a Heywood close is possible if the new sources are good. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify to Draft:Carlo Romeo (without disambiguation), and further tag the draft with {{Promising draft}}. A review of the sources does not show that any of them meet Wikipedia's standards. The addition of 8 more sources has not significantly improved the situation. This is an unusual situation in that it strongly appears that the subject is biographically notable, but reliable sources have not been found. Many of the sources, as noted by the nominator, are in the nature of a CV, some are interviews of the subject, and some are interviews by the subject. Some of the sources added cannot be accessed. A review of the sources follows:

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify I am seeing the strong possibility of the coverage that is not that apparent at this moment. AFC can decide how the article needs to be designer. TolWol56 (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Nous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:WEB, the sources provided are mere mentions, and there's no evidence of sufficient coverage of the right kind. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a high-profile website within the philosophy community (and is even cited in the more formal literature), but finding secondary sources about it and its history might be difficult. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question The academic citations to it, the mentions the news [5][6], and its use in 133 pages here all suggest that we should say something about it. In other words, it's plausible that a reader will come across the name of the website and want to know what kind of website it is, and we'd be serving the public interest if we had a few lines on the topic. Is there a viable merge target? University of South Carolina#Media seems like an odd fit, but not impossible. Category:Philosophy blogs doesn't have a main article, but if it did, this article could become a section in it. Unfortunately, the site's editor doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF by other means, so we can't really make a biography for him and merge this to it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did a good hard search for sources and found none that were useful. I sympathize with XO's concerns, but if we don't have good sources, what could we really say about the blog that its about page doesn't? (Btw, that page claims that DN has been "reported about or cited in The New York Times, The Washington Post, National Public Radio, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, The New York Review of Books, The Financial Times, New York Magazine, Vox, and various other media outlets", but I didn't come across many of those in my searches.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete. I lean toward inclusionism, and this page is notable enough (and earnest enough) within its own community to easily pass the bar as I see it. Unfortunately I'm forced to declare that it doesn't strike me as passing the bar that Wikipedia now implements, where we put so much emphasis on sourcing and so little on common sense (relatively speaking). Of course, if common sense was common, beggars would ride, and that is how we got here. — MaxEnt 23:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I'll go with the common sense; the sources probably do not address it in detail but they indicate that the website is popular (and this and this) and we have enough secondary information about it. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NWEB.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nefisa Mkhabela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable actress that fails WP:NACTOR. also fails WP:GNG. NarangD (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nom. Barrettmagic ^Talk 13:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked sock. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I had previously draftied this but seems the author forcefully moved it… The subject fails WP:NACTOR. She’s most likely to be notable in the future. WP:TOOSOON. -Xclusivzik (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per nom Xclusivzik.4meter4 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Parr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BIO. No references. Imcdc (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- clearly a NN minister. The choice of his forenames for Walt Disney does not change that as notability is NOT INHERITED. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I found some sources. It seems that he baptized Walt Disney; he was also the chairman of the Association of Congregational Churches of Indiana. I don't know if these put him over the threshold for notability, but I will leave the refs here for perusal.

jp×g 21:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC) ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}[reply]

• Delete Sources provided by JPxG unfortunately don't provide significant coverage of the subject (they're either about actions of the Association of Congregational Churches of Indiana or Walt Disney). Being the chairman of a religious organization doesn't meet the any of the SNG of WP:BIO. Since the subject also fails GNG, the article should be deleted. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this seems to be a case of inherited notability from Walt Disney without significant coverage of Walter Parr himself, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Interconnect Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:ORG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A longstanding unreferenced article to which more unreferenced product information has been added by IPs on a couple of occasions. The basic facts about the company origins can be verified: I added a couple of references. As to whether it is worth preserving (see the Talk page discussion from 2003), that remains open. AllyD (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable with a promotional odor. --Lockley (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep was WP:BEFORE done? There's sources, some added passing WP:GNG. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP - this should be stubbed, promo removed and the overly detailed product info reduced down to basics. Widefox; talk 22:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep indeed, Imdc should have at least made some effort to find sources, there are quite a few for a company around so long. The article did need to be rewritten a bit from the usual product guide; it looks better so far. I prefer a historical narrative for a subject which has lasted so long. W Nowicki (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Improvements to the article seem to meet WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Strazynski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was flagged in July for its low quality sourcing and neutrality, and yes, many sources seem to be largely self-promotional in nature. There seems to be little notable coverage outside of niche poker media outlets. In addition, 'Cardplayer Lifestyle' and 'The Orbit', the subject's apparent media creations, do not themselves appear to be notable enough to have their own articles. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think the subject meets WP:NBIO. Very little is written about him, and the awards and other achievements also seem to fall short of our standards. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: To be niche is not a problem. We keep articles on things notable in their niche. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Iskandar323 MaskedSinger (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I was trying to put together a list of sources that meet WP:N, but all the ones I could find (including the article) were either (high-quality) blog posts or otherwise self-published, interviews, or passing mentions. I don't see WP:N being met. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional, no independent quality sources to indicate notability. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Niche but interesting. Regarding WP:N there are articles from established sources: Las Vegas Review Journal, The Wichita Eagle, Israel National News, The Jerusalem Post. BenjaminResnick (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BenjaminResnick You break out of 6 year hiatus to vote keep. Not a good look. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MaskedSinger Yeah, I'm not a regular editor. Maybe that's why I've never come across a delete conversation before. It was so out of place that it got me to look up my user name and figure out the shorthand. Why even bother deleting this? (other editors: sorry if this should have been a private discussion) BenjaminResnick (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I came across this page and review the sources. The page presents quite a bunch of high exposure medias who cover his career. I stumble upon this one from Calvin Ayre: https://calvinayre.com/2017/01/19/poker/robbie-strazynski-kids-kicking-cancer-running-well-campaign/ . As far as I know such high level media isn't interviewing everyone, this leads me to think request for keep remains legit Flore1012 (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One user coming out of the woodwork to vote keep is misfortune, two is carelessness. No such thing as coincidences. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this SPI/Check User worthy? MaskedSinger (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Good pointer. Something I'll now look out for in AfDs and other discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of this article seems to be a non-notable internet influencer who has paid for coverage. Based on a spot-check of the sources, I found most of them to be entirely irrelevant or incorrectly cited. Just about every source in this article is suspicious. I suspect that the article was created by a paid editing service to misrepresent the notability of this subject. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator should withdraw this AfD. Notability is shown by multiple chart placements. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Eastmain, Most of the charts are from Music Week and are not UK's national chart so don't count for WP:MUSIC. The other is just another sub chart. This whole thing looks like PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm seeing a lot of advertorial, tabloid, primary and such. Article history has too much SPAs writing promo. Wikipedia is not here for promotion. There is a lack of coverage in good sources. Billboard charting is just one of a plethora of sub charts, not the countries main chart. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia only ascribes notability per WP:NMUSIC #2 to IFPI-certified national pop charts on the order of Billboard or the UK's Official Charts Company, and not on the basis of just any randoid WP:BADCHART you can find — which means nothing stated here passes WP:NMUSIC, and the sourcing is very overdependent on unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better than this, but this as written isn't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree. scope_creep^Talk 13:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VideoKen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The company only has funding related news which is basically routine announcements of receiving funding from one source or the other. The sources are either not reliable or won't fulfil WP:CORPDEPTH. Reads promotional with all businesspersons name listed on the page. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficient coverage in WP:RS to pass corp-depth concerns. If there is a concern on WP:PROMO targeted re-writes should be attempted. Do not see an issue in keeping this one. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment WP:RS agreed; but Corp-depth, please provide some examples from the sources that illustrates how it is met. I don't think it is. For the sake of others who might participate, will be good to get examples of corp-depth from this article. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one bit of circumstantial evidence is that creator Special:Contributions/Sayyed Noman seems to be creating quite a few new articles, all with promotional tone. This one in particular is supposedly based in the USA but uses India-style dates, as do most of the paid editors I have seen. A million bucks in venture money is down in the noise these days of decacorns. Wait until they have some customers perhaps. WP:TOOSOON. W Nowicki (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janette Ewen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an interior designer, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for designers. The notability claim here is of the "person who has had jobs" variety, with no indication of the distinctions (e.g. notable awards) that it takes to bridge the gap between existence and notability -- and the references are almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with the exception of a single unrecoverable deadlink from a newspaper, which fails both the Wayback Machine and ProQuest tests (I can find no indication that the paper in question published any content about Janette Ewen on the indicated date at all). And while the ProQuest search gave me a lot of glancing namechecks of Janette Ewen's existence, I found virtually no hits about her for the purposes of establishing passage of WP:GNG -- I just get pieces soundbiting quotes from her, which is not the same thing. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It looks like the WP:BASIC notability claim is interior designer and lifestyle expert, e.g. Janette Ewen Shares Her Story: Interior Design, Race Cars, and Fashion (Beyond Fashion, 2018, "a successful interior designer, TV personality, and lifestyle expert"), 10 Canadian celebrity designers dish on their best design tips (Canadian Living, 2017), 11 designers to watch out for this weekend at the Vancouver Home + Design Show (Georgia Straight, 2015), My favourite room: Janette Ewen’s bedroom (The Globe and Mail, 2014), Janette Ewen: “I do mini fashion-stories in my head” (FAJO, 2013, "A familiar face in the media"), Canadian style-makers give us a sneak peek of what's to come in 2013 (Canadian Living, 2013), Made in Canada furniture as good as it gets (Toronto Star, 2012, "Lifestyle expert Janette Ewen..."), Janette Ewen gives a voice to Canadian design (Business of Home, 2011, "first-ever Canadian Furniture Trends Display ambassador [...] A decor and lifestyle expert..."), Make the most of fall's last hurrah with a patio party (Toronto Star, 2011, "Janette Ewen, Toronto-based lifestyle expert and co-host of W Network’s Inside the Box with Ty Pennington"), Building the right environment for learning (Toronto Star, 2010, "Ewen, who is co-hosting Ty Pennington’s new home design show Inside the Box"), Ty Pennington's coming to Canada, casting for new home design series (Toronto Star, 2010, "Pennington and Canadian lifestyle expert Janette Ewen"), Lighting sheds bright ideas on space (Toronto Star, 2009, "...says interior stylist Janette Ewen."). Beccaynr (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC) strike !vote per scope_creep's comments below - Beccaynr (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking for sources in which she is substantively the subject of other people's third party and third-person analysis. Not Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself, not listicles that just briefly quote her as offering design advice, and not glancing namechecks of her existence in articles whose primary subject is Ty Pennington. Bearcat (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From my perspective, I think the volume of coverage over time, and what the sources say about her help bridge the gap between existence and notability, per WP:BASIC, and the part of the criteria that says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. For example, the 2018 Beyond Fashion interview begins with a paragraph of biographical material and WP:SECONDARY commentary about her. From my view, the 2017 Canadian Living listing of tips and other similar articles make a form of WP:SECONDARY commentary when she is selected for inclusion as one of "Canada's top celebrity designers". The Georgia Straight in 2015 offers career information, with a line of WP:SECONDARY commentary, and the overall WP:SECONDARY theme is that those included are "T.V. stars and big-name designers". The Globe and Mail focuses on her in 2014, and begins with about a paragraph of biographical information. The 2013 FAJO interview includes a line in its introduction about her career, showing why they found her 'worthy of notice' to interview, and there are some leading questions in the interview with additional career information. An article like the BOH in 2011 is brief, but focused on her career. And coverage of her role in the Ty Pennington show includes WP:SECONDARY commentary such as "Ewen is also known for her offbeat style, as recently showcased in the National Home Show Dream Home" (Toronto Star, 2011), and it seems to have been spun into a series of articles focused on her and her design ideas, e.g. Toronto Star, 2010, including a WP:SECONDARY description of her as an "expert" e.g. Toronto Star 2011. Many sources above directly focus on her, and there are more sources available - from my view, the context and commentary from the sources above help make none of them trivial mentions, and help support her notability as well as a way to further develop the article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Creating a special place for kids to do homework can help them focus on assignments and be more successful is that is straight up PR. That is very thin. He is another one Designer and editor Janette Ewen has some tips for gifts you can make at home. The coverage is made up of intervisew selling her product, or articles where she is selling products, or tip type articles, where she is employed to provide tips for her audience. Along with that are lots and lots of interviews, that fail WP:SIGCOV as they are WP:PRIMARY. The volume of coverage you see is due to her being a paid editor for the Toronto Star as well as the Global News. They are not secondary sources. A BLP must have secondary sources to prove notabilty, so why are you listing the 2018 Beyond Fashion interview, which you listed a secondary. IT IS NOT secondary. It is an interview. scope_creep^Talk 11:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep, I appreciate your assessment, but to clarify my view on the sources: when I review interviews, I look for whether there is more than statements by the subject, including independently-reported context or commentary, and assess that as secondary, and as a partial support for WP:BASIC notability, due to how multiple sources can be combined, even if the depth is not substantial. With this subject, what is swinging my !vote towards keep is the volume of coverage over time and how many sources refer to her as an expert, which I read as a form of secondary commentary that supports her notability for an article. And as to the concern about the independence of the Toronto Star, this source publishes Journalistic Standards, which includes disclosures of conflicts of interests, and in the bylined articles posted above, there is no such disclosure in the articles that are about her ideas, not written by her. She appears to have a career that has been found 'worthy of notice' over time, and I think information from sources identified in this discussion can help expand the article in a non-advertorial way. Beccaynr (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is being paid to create this content, over a sustained of period of time, so there is lots and lots of stuff on it. But there has no secondary analysis of her work or life over that period. Interview's are really only viable when the subject in question is in that type of frame, for example models. That is all they have, so interview's become really important. But subject has had a really long career, and if it was special, it would be immediately visible, but it's not. So the interview's here are primary. Essentially, your trying to spin up a continuity of work, particulalry when the context is so generalised and basic, into something that it's not. Her work is really kitschy. There is no depth to it. Where is the secondary sources that provide analysis of her work, to prove she is notable. They are not there. scope_creep^Talk 15:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This may be a mite bold, as there were policy-grounded arguments and PER votes to both keep and delete. After a week and a half of relisting, there was minimal further participation, which did not further a consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liam McCullough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. The individual does not appear to have played a game in a qualifying league (see his PFR page for more information on his non-notable NFL time), nor served in a notable coaching position. Coverage of the article subject outside of this context appears to be routine sports coverage. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Failing NGRIDIRON is irrelevant if he meets GNG—which—it appears does per the following: Worthington Kilbourne, Ohio State grad Liam McCullough ready for Raiders from ThisWeekNews.com; Liam McCullough delivers again, arrives at Ohio State camp sporting T-shirt of himself from SaturdayTradition.com; and Ohio State long snapper Liam McCullough takes aim at NFL career from The Columbus Dispatch and BuckeyeXtra.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To respond source-by-source:
  1. This Week News appears to be a community newspaper, though the coverage is in-depth.
  2. Saturday Tradition appears to be an Ohio State sportsblog. The article itself doesn't appear to be significant coverage, and it's about the shirt that he's wearing to training camp (see WP:DOGBITESMAN).
  3. The Columbus Dispatch's coverage, reprinted in BuckeyeXtra.com, seems to be in-depth, significant, and independent.

  Taken together, it's a rather weak WP:GNG case. If we're relying upon a community newspaper to be the second reliable source (and that community newspaper appears to actually be affiliated with The Columbus Dispatch, FYI), to what extent does this person's inclusion add encyclopedic value? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a deeper search and found this, this, this, and this. Also, his OSU profile says he was a finalist (I believe top 3) for the Patrick Mannelly Award, given to the best LS in the nation. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First of all, the subject was a walk-on long snapper at Ohio State, i.e., a limited purpose special teams player who did not play as a member of the regular defensive or offensive units. Moreover, the GNG showing is weak. The two substantive pieces are both from The Columbus Dispatch ("ThisWeekNews" is published by the Dispatch). The third source is a sports blog. GNG requires SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. Finally, there's nothing in the Wiki article showing any real encyclopedic value. Absent a showing of SIGCOV in other reliable sources, this one should be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BeanieFan11. MainPeanut (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep passes WP:GNG. He even had coverage in high school: USA Today--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cbl62 and Mikehawk's response.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The "USA Today" article is a from subsidiary website focused on college recruiting and not the newspaper proper. Usually, notable college players have a much larger breadth of coverage by even localized sources if not multiple national references. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep despite the comments above I feel the subject meets WP:GNG, which does not exclude local coverage. NemesisAT (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'll admit, it's a borderline case. But I think there are sufficient sources to meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvesh Asthana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable poet and writer. Refs are blogs and annoucement. No reviews of work. Rests on Yash Bharti award which had 73 awardees and huge number of categories. scope_creep^Talk 09:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The subject is known stage or spoken poet, who has performed India and abroad, and appeared on various TV shows to perform poetry. The poet has also authored more than 10 books, all of them are in Hindi. I have cited whatever I could found on Google. He has been recipient of UP State's highest civilian honor, Yash Bharati and Uttar Pradesh government's Sohan Lal Dwivedi Award and others. Most of the references cited in the page are well known Hindi newspapers such as Dainik Jagran, Patrika, Amar Ujala, Hindustan (newspaper), Navbharat Times, and a few are English news publications like Hindustan Times. They are NOT blogs. The topic meets Wikipedia's Notability guidelines, hence I vote to keep the page.--Ajinkyasingh (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep An obviously notable poet and author. And the AfD saying "Refs are blogs and annoucement," that is absolutely wrong. This article has plenty of reliable sources to prove notability, including sources such as the Navbharat Times and the Hindustan Times, two of the largest and best-known papers in India.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first Navbharat Times is about the father, not the son, and in its 20 lines, hardly in-depth. The second Navbharat Times is an annoucement, the third is about some foundation, not the subject. The Hindustan Times is about an award, that doesn't have any article on Wikipedia. None of them are in-depth. You haven't looked at them have you. scope_creep^Talk 20:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reviews of the poetry? scope_creep^Talk 20:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It has been two weeks since the Afd was posted and no offer of any reviews of the mans work to show that he is notable. Where is the reviews that satisfy WP:POET. Two reviews in a notable journal, will define him as a poet, otherwise he is a storyteller, of which there is hundreds in India. The Hindustan Times, a great paper, is a passing mention. Quantity does not quality. Reviews count. scope_creep^Talk 11:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Given that the nominator has mislabeled non-blog sources as blogs and misidentified the nature and content of other sources, it’s clear that a fair, accurate, and balanced source analysis was not done. As such, I am not seeing a strong argument for deletion based in a non-biased and factually accurate assessment.4meter4 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: If you keep making untrue statements, I will take you to Ani. It is a personal attack. This is the 2nd time I've had to give you a warning. The article has been updated before you posted and the blogs have been removed. Where is the reviews of the mans work, or a reference to prove he won the award. scope_creep^Talk 13:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANi, Really? It was an honest error on my part if that’s the case. I wasn’t being untruthful, but calling out what I believed to be true at the time. I’ll note that Southern Nights called you out for the same thing above, and that comment colored my view when looking at the article originally. I didn’t think to look at older versions of the article, so apologies if you were addressing issues that were already remedied. I do make mistakes from time to time.

Regardless, I stand by what I said in terms of the need for a better more detailed source analysis to prove that deletion is the best choice. For example, all of the award statements are followed by inline citations. Are you claiming these sources don’t verify the content? I don’t read Hindi, do you? You are asking for evidence, but to all appearances the evidence is there in presumably the foreign language refs cited. If you are going to claim the sources don’t verify the content, do us a favor and make a source analysis chart where the issues can clearly be seen and talked about. Otherwise I’m going to assume good faith on the foreign language content I can’t read. The ball is in your court. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @4meter4: That is cool. It is very easy to vote keep on these Afd's. The system is naturally skewed towards keeping the article and sources analysis is great in principle, but with deletion review, it is getting and getting harder and harder to remove the junk. This is a junk article. Any author needs reviews. Where are they? Looking at the references for a BLP.

Ref 1 in weekleyvoice.com that indicate he attended the Comedy Poetry Festival (Hasya Kavi Sammelan) at the Courtyard By Marriott Brampton.

Ref 2 LUCKNOW Comic poet Sarvesh Asthana would be representing Lucknow at the Kavi Sammelan organized by the All-India Hindi Akademi at Lal Qila in New Delhi on January 10. The event is organized to mark Republic Day celebrations every year. A recipient of Kaka Hathrasi Award and Yash Bharti Award, Asthana has toured many other countries to popularize Hindi poetry. This an annoucement of an event.

Ref 3 Another noted poet and Yash Bharti awardee Sarvesh Asthana said, “I will meet the chief minister with the delegation of award winners, I will speak my mind there.” A passing mention and annoucement.

Ref 4 States he won the award. 73 people on the same time won the award.

Ref 5 An annoucement. Eminent poet Sarvesh Asthana from Lucknow is also coming to attend this event to tickle everyone with his funny compositions in satire A passing mention.

Ref 6 Sarvesh Asthana has been named advisor to the Indian Council for Cultural Relations A passing mention. A very short paragraph indicating he do his best for young artists. Same annoucement.

Ref 7 Annoucement of celebration of freedom fighter and details the father of Sarvesh. A passing mention.

Ref 8 Sarvesh Asthana of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh is a famous satirist who has participated in Kavi Sammelans and Mushairas since 1989.

Ref 9 Sarvesh Asthana of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh is a famous satirist who has participated in Kavi Sammelans and Mushairas since 1989 Ref 8 and 9 are profiles.

Ref 10 Sarvesh Asthana of Lucknow, a recipient of Uttar Pradesh’s highest civilian award ‘Yash Bharati’ and numerous national and international awards, is a famous satirist who has been participating in Kavi Sammelans and Mushairas since 1989.

Six of the 10 references are annoucements. Two of them are taken from the same profile. They are very poor for a BLP. The award that is seen as prestigious doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. That doesn't indicate it is non-notable, but 73 people received the same award on the same day, which makes it suspect. Where is reviews of his work. Is it case that western poets always need to have reviews of their work on here, and eastern poets don't? Two reviews in a recognised academic or poetry journal that would do it. scope_creep^Talk 15:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're is a lots of low-quality coverage on the subject with no reviews. Please read Paid news in India. I don't see secondary sources for this BLP, nor reviews. scope_creep^Talk 16:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You have mentioned twice that Yash Bharati has no separate Wikipedia page. I tink, you are mistaken, the prestigious award has a Wikipedia page. You can check, Yash Bharati.

About reviews, the subject is performing poet, a kind of stage artist. Such poets are popular because of their performance and popularising Hindi or folk poetry and literature through their performance. Due to his contribution in Hindi literature, he was honored with Yash Bharati by the Uttar Pradesh government. I research and found a few more reference such as Amar Ujala (1), Prabhasakshi (2), Hindustan (newspaper) (3), (4), (5) I might add it later. Seeing his media coverage, he clearly meets the Wikipedia:BASIC of Notability and as he is the recipient of prestigious Yash Bharati for his contribution in literature, he meets WP:NPEOPLE and WP:ANYBIO.--Ajinkyasingh (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that up. I didn't see it. You seems to posting up lots of low-quality small paragraphs here and there. Where are the reviews of his poetry, to indicate he is not. Not annoucements, not clickbaits sites, not wee bits of PR or small paragraphs of past events. Real secondary sources, reviews of his work in a critical poetry journal. Two of them and this Afd will close immediately. scope_creep^Talk 20:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

: there are discussions about him and his poetry in Sāhitya-bhāratī, by Uttara Pradeśa Hindī Saṃsthāna (a copy is held by at least one mighty western university (the University of Michigan), it must be notable if it's not on its own just as a western university is keeping the copy despite being foreign language book). There are references also in Ataeva, again by Uttara Pradeśa Hindī Saṃsthāna. Uttar Pradesh Chief minister Yogi Adityanath is the principal administrator of Uttara Pradeśa Hindī Saṃsthāna. Asthana's poetry has reference in discussions in Chāyānata and Vatana hai to hama haiṃ by Bhārata Buka Seṇṭara. Copy of the later text is available at eleven (11) US University libraries as per Worldcat despite its being a Hindi text. I am neither in favor of keeping this article nor deleting it - just stating the facts. Di xiku 15:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked.[reply]

Yip, I understand he written 7 books and libraries hold these books. Where is the reviews of any of these books, and the poetry they contain? scope_creep^Talk 20:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage. None of the sources focus, at least mostly, either on him as a person, or his work. Dege31 (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm astounded at the personal attacks in this discussion. When I voted a strong keep earlier, the person who posted this AfD said I must not have read the references and kept asking where the reviews are. Notability on Wikipedia for writers isn't based solely on reviews. Looking at the media sources out there it is obvious there's enough for notability. For example, this article in the Indo American News discusses his poetry and life alongside two other poets. He's also featured in multiple articles in the Times of India, the largest English language newspaper in the country, and the Hindustan Times, another large English paper (for links see 1, 2, 3). And there are more non-English source focused on this subject (check out this article on him, or this one). Or check out the 94 other media articles about him from the last few years in Google News! That's 94 news articles either about this poet or mentioning him in the last few years. Do you know how few poets in the world receive that much media attention? Finally the government of Uttar Pradesh, a state with a population of nearly 200 million people, gave him their top civilian award the Yash Bharati. If the United Kingdom, a country with a population of only 67 million, gave a poet their top civilian award, we wouldn't be debating if they were notable or not. We'd accept they were notable. The totality of the reliable coverage on this subject and the significant awards he's received support notability. It's that simple. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're was no personal attacks on this page, and if you repeat that again, your going straight up to AN. Reviews are the only thing that can prove the person is a poet. scope_creep^Talk 14:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are not the only thing that prove a person is a poet. As stated in the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people under creative professionals, notability can be determined by "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." So reviews are one way to prove notability, but so are multiple independent periodical articles, which we have plenty of here. As for personal attacks, you stated "You haven't looked at them have you" in your original response to me, referring to me not reading the references. That was an attack, as is threatening to take me to AN if I repeat that. That has no place in an AfD.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As other commentators said, it was awarded to 73 people at the same time, not only to him. So it's as if eg. he received it in Gabon. Even in that case, it would count towards notability if it was exclusive. But considering it is not, it's incomparable. The number of news articles mentioning him is not relevant, because routine coverage and significant coverage are not the same thing. There are many tabloids covering reality show participants, as well, here and there. Do they cover him or his work as the focus, for more than a small paragraph? In all the sources given, the subject is mentioned in passing or collectively. Dege31 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The award doesn't appear to be given out every year so yes, they give it to multiple people when it is awarded. But none of that takes away from it's significance or proof of notability. The award appears similar to the Order of the British Empire, which is also awarded to multiple people at one time yet is also strong proof of notability for a subject. And yes, some of the articles I referenced only discuss him for a paragraph or two, but others focus extensively on this work. Both of the Hindu-language newspaper articles I linked to feature in-depth video interviews with the subject, one in the Rajasthan Patrika paper and the other in the Hindustan Dainik. (Hindustan Dainik article and Rajasthan Patrika article). Both of these Hindu-language papers have circulations in the millions and ran articles exclusively about him, with video interviews. Again, the totality of the media coverage and the awards he's received support notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as he received a major award.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The early references, which appear to be the ones attesting notability, translated contain bare mentions or no mention. The first claim to notability, awarded the Yash Bharati, is awarded to many people, the vast majority not notable, and there is no comment to be found about him receiving the awards. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 19:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halyna Hutchins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BLP1E; WP:ONEEVENT . Article created on the day the news broke about her death. While I am sure the women in red gang would disagree, to my mind, from the body of her article it's not evident there are any achievements in her life for which she would have been notable for wikipedia had she not been killed by Baldwin. Daikido (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rust (upcoming film)#Shooting incident, as that's the only thing she's known for (if a separate article for that incident gets create, redirect there instead). But clearly fails WP:ONEEVENT, and she wasn't notable in her life. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rust (upcoming film)#Shooting incident. Only really notable now because of the shooting, prior to this I never heard of her. JMHamo (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Multiple accomplishments as a cinematographer are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. After her death, media have been covering her life and work in detail, including BFMTV ("Qui était Halyna Hutchins"), and BBC ("Halyna Hutchins: Rising star of film industry was 'an incredible artist'"). Even though occasioned by the shooting, this coverage is about more than that, avoiding ONEEVENT problems. Reducing an acclaimed artist's work to a redirect covering her being shot by somebody else would be demeaning. Sandstein 11:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if not, Redirect to Rust (upcoming film)#Shooting incident. The assertion that there were not to be enough notable achievements in her life had she not been killed is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL. How does the nominating editor know how little (or much) significant work was to come from the subject in later life? That part of the editor's argument makes me think the slim notability to be even bigger, and the manner of her death requires some acknowledgement, even if that is by redirect. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. It is too soon to tell if enough information can be found to create a good wikipedia article. if not perhaps making a page specifically about her death ,following investigation and possible legal proceedings (assuming there is any)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.238.12 (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Wyliepedia @ 12:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would have assumed with her film industry credits it was note worthy enough for a Wikipedia page. The manner of her death is very significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knockdomney (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. To contrast the very first argument given: this article is not even a day old. While most editors might be quick to look at her tragic death as one event, her article has yet to be improved sufficiently to warrant deletion. Give it a month. Wyliepedia @ 12:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The onus is on the article creator to demonstrate it passes WP:GNG, not the other way round. They haven't done that, and doesn't look like she does. If in 1 month, 6 months or a year's time, she does for some reason, the article could be recreated at that point. But this is an article created in reaction to her death. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - There is no doubt that the article was created in reaction to her death, but how is that a problem? Just because there is one event that triggers an article creation doesn't mean that WP:ONEEVENT applies, or does it? Renerpho (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – a lot of information is coming out about her career. However, the article for Joel Souza was also created the day of the incident but the same can't be said about him. I vote to redirect the Joel Souza article and keep the one about Hutchins. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient sourcing to establish notability not only about her death, but about her career and overall body of work, which negates any ONEEVENT concerns. — Hunter Kahn 13:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to body of work; a "one event" fallacy. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-In accordance with WP:ONEEVENT, this article should be removed.Nothing that I see about her in this article is notable. If she warranted her own Wikipedia article, she probably would have had one before Baldwin shot her. Display name 99 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST fallacy: "because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should." Ribbet32 (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbet32, that might apply if the article was not created immediately and obviously in reaction to a particularly major incident, which by itself does not establish notability. Display name 99 (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to "Death of Halyna Hutchins", how we have tended to handle this sort of issue. PatGallacher (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would just repeat the information from the Rust article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eastmain, Sandstein, Ref, Knockdomney, Hunter Kahn and Ribbet32. Halyna Hutchins is without a doubt sufficiently notable to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. She has 32 credits as a cinematographer as well as a number of other film credits and won the Jury Prize for Best Cinematography at the 2019 English Riviera Film Festival. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I absolutely agree. While she isn't super-notable, even without her death, she would still be borderline notable enough for an article. EytanMelech (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure this obscure festival is a criteria for notability: does Boris Hallvig have a Wikipedia page ? He is the only other winner of the Cinematography prize in the history of this festival, that only added a cinematography prize in 2019, quite a reference... --Mayfoev (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per editors before me. She has many notable credits. It's true that the article was mostly like created in response to her death, but as Ribbet32 points out "because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should." She should have already had an article before her death, but it took her death for an editor to realize that we didn't have one for her. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "Death of Halyna Hutchins" as that is what was notable enough to cause this article creation. Warren Dew (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Trillfendi (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Warren Dew and Trillfendi: As I said before, a "death of" article would simply repeat the same information as the Rust article. She is notable enough to have an article about her career. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this. She has several notable credits. Yes, her death is what brought attention to the fact that she was lacking an article, but it's not what makes her notable. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Move: Per nom and above comment. Subject was not notable under WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG prior to incident. Incident has clearly garnered media attention and, as such, should either be included in an article somewhere (Rust movie) or have a standalone for this event. The incident is what is notable, not the individual. GauchoDude (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the individual is notable (from „She grew up on a military base in the Arctic Circle surrounded by reindeer and nuclear submarines“ to Kyiv University and LA), in lived 42 yrs...☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 15:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, looking at the list of obituaries published by „The...Reporter“, are there any other insignificant persons, to be excluded?☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 16:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is not a day old and there’s significant coverage in the media. The other alternative would be just moving it to "Death of Halyna Hutchins". Keivan.f^Talk 16:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Given the amount of info the article has now, it seems that the individual is notable enough to merit an article, even putting aside the increased notoriety due to the unfortunate circumstances of the individual's death.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rust (upcoming film)#Shooting incident. No independent notability for the individual, just the event. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply. Only deep coverage of her came after her death. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Body of work substantial enough to justify keeping, aside from today’s tragic eve. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - From what others in the film industry have said about her, she was notable for her work where men typically have dominated the field. [7] JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 16:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Enough information for her notability as per now--Noel baran (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, without redirect. She would have been notable enough without the events leading to her death. This was merely an opportunity to create an article that should have been created a long time ago. Renerpho (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: We can debate the importance for her career alone (I think it would be fine for a Wikipedia article), but the combination of her career and the circumstances of her death absolutely make this a clear keep for me. It is an important historical moment in filmmaking, and it will give future people a chance to learn about her life's work and legacy. Electricmaster (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or move to "Death of Halyna Hutchins". She doesn't seem notable, but her manner of death perhaps is.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rust (upcoming film)#Shooting incident or move to "Death of Halyna Hutchins". She was probably as talented as tributes seem to say, and a promising artist, but nothing in her body of work was notable at the time of her death (otherwise many obscure cinematographers would have a Wikipedia page). Mayfoev (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, without redirect. She would have been notable enough without the events leading to her death. This was merely an opportunity to create an article that should have been created a long time ago. Renerpho (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Of course this should be kept. I will never understand this desire on the part of some editors to delete articles! We want more information, not less. And who's to judge whose career is and isn't notable? She was the DP on Darlin', that is enough for me, as I very much like that film, and it's part of The Woman series of films that are cult favorites. Jmj713 (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: So that others may know the dangers of using prop guns; this is not the first death that has resulted on a movie set. Her life was as important as any other person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.105.50.19 (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If the upcoming film is/was important enough to include A-list actors, the cinematographer tragically killed on set is certainly notable enough to have her own Wikipedia page. Phineas Gage (just a random construction foreman) would not have had a Wikipedia page had he not been impaled by an iron rod while working. People will want to know who this person was and her body of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:1100:4C0:8C59:8AD3:4219:A0BB (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - she appears to have had WP:CREATIVE notability before her death due to her collective body of work, and she now appears to have further WP:BASIC notability due to the in-depth coverage of her and her career from multiple independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - Moving to "Death of Halyna Hutchins" would seem to be option most consistent with similar events. While at this time most of the information would be repeated between this article and "Rust" as the event develops and more information becomes available and subsequent fallout occurs, this would be likely be better suited for this article and not an article about the film. 2001:8003:2360:2400:D17E:68E8:B250:54F6 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is it too soon to note that it's WP:SNOWing? – Athaenara ✉ 18:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is not a vote tally and some of the "keep" votes are non-policy based, such as So that others may know the dangers of using prop guns, yes, it would be too quick to close this now. An admin will need to take their time parsing this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep she was even described in the main Dutch news programm: NOS Journaal. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Rephrasing after edit conflict.) Note arguments put forth by Eastmain, Sandstein, Knockdomney, Hunter Kahn, Roman Spinner, JDDJS, Yorkshiresky, Junglecat, and others. (Is it too soon to point out that it's WP:SNOWing and time to speedy keep?) – Athaenara ✉ 18:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]