Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 6

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— 16:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Old Unreferenced BLP (August 2017); tthere's an "official" web site (deadlinked), Facebook and YouTube links in the External links, so this wouldn't qualify for a sticky PROD. I couldn't find any useful English-language sources in G-search, G-News, G-Scholar, JSTOR G-newspapers or G-books to support notability. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)} Baffle☿gab 22:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• merge into Academia Fantasia (as has been done on Thai wiki). Furius (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (Or redirect Furius (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete. The contestants name is mentioned in the Academia Fantasia article and there’s no room in that for this kind of cruft about individual participants. We shouldn’t be merging anything that can’t be sourced in any case. Mccapra (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: AF2 aired in 2005, older than the current online availability of most news sites, so it's hard to tell whether she was the subject of much coverage back then. (I did find this 2006 piece from Positioning Magazine where she's profiled along with the other contestants, but it's just a resume-style list and not particularly in-depth.[1]) She still appears in celebrity gossip news, though most of the results are from 2019, about her relationship with another celebrity[2][3][4]. She and her husband (from a previous marriage) appeared on a 50-minute talk show on national terrestrial channel Thairath TV in 2014[5]. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I cannot find a reliable ref for this article Victuallers (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely unsourced, should have been BLPPROD-ed long ago, but since it's been brought here, no need to PROD it. --littleb2009 (^she/_her) (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 June 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Murray (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP of a data journalist and author who has published one book of note but does not appear to me to pass WP:AUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:00, 23 May 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. Sandstein 21:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Has already been PRODded, there are three sources on the article (two in external links), an encyclopedia about anime that I'm unable to access to see the extent of the coverage of Vixens in it, an in-depth review from Mania, and an in-depth review from Monsters At Play, the latter of which doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. I was unable to find any additional sources, and I don't think this meets notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of The Anime Encyclopedia:

Visionary. 1995. AKA: Vixens. Video. DIR: Teruo Kigure, Taiichi Kitagawa. SCR: Ryo Saga. DES: Tomohiro Ando. ANI: Tomohiro Ando. MUS: Masahiko Kikuchi. PRO: Knack, Beam Entertainment. 30 mins., 45 mins. , 30 mins.

It then gives a 100-word-in-total summary that describes the premises of the three merged episodes. — Goszei (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per Goszei and the Mania article. Appears to be notable. Link20XX (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Per Link20XX. Sourcing is poor but it is enough to meet WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 04:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If another encyclopedia has an entry on the subject, so should we.4meter4 (talk) 21:08, 14 June 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. Hasan (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Hasan (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unreferenced BLP but there's an "official" web site promoting an autobiographic book (deadlinked), and an IMDB url in the External links, so this wouldn't qualify for a sticky PROD. I couldn't find any useful sources in G-search, G-News, G-Scholar, JSTOR G-newspapers or G-books (there's a few casual mentions there. This suggests the person may not merit an article on WP. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Baffle☿gab 22:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has had main roles in multiple movies that we have articles for. Searching for her name in Thai brings up several news articles... as a non-Thai speaker I can't evaluate their quality, but they do exist. Furius (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes NACTOR as having main roles in many films. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject has appeared in many films as a main role and passes WP:ENT (citation is needed though). Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Won several top-tier rewards which I am going to add. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject's active career was twenty years ago, so most sources are not available online, but considering her many prominent TV and film roles, in-depth coverage can easily be presumed to exist. Quite a few sources have recently covered her personal life, e.g. The Cloud[6] and Praew[7]. They are interview-based, but do contain introductions in the author's voice that indicate notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 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 23:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:MMABIO for not securing at least 3 fighter in top tier promotion. Subject also fails GNG as info of the fights is routine sport report. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable. HeinzMaster (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this should be deleted Drlivelife (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 07:36, 12 June 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atichai Phoemsap (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 youth versions of the Olympic Games and Amateur Championships do not meet WP:NBOX Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG. Multiple sources write about him, for instance here and here and [8]. More available via Google. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no notable achievements, and the sources shown by Sportsolympic are not independent of the subject, and also promotional in tone. Geschichte (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He won bronze medal at Boxing at the 2019 Southeast Asian Games --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lerdsuwa Could you provide source for that ? VocalIndia (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was beaten by Filipino boxer so he got some English coverage from Filipino media such as [9]. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Coyle (baseball) (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 minor league ballplayer. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fails WP:BASEBALL/N (never played in the majors) and GNG Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He was a 3rd round pick, Pennsylvania player of the year, and passes WP:GNG. A quick search turns up abundant WP:SIGCOV. E.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. There's enough sources of him as a prospect to say he passes GNG. Changing to Keep Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're keeping failed professional baseball players on the grounds that they were a high school player of the year, we have serious notability issues. This should be an open and shut fails WP:NBASE case. SportingFlyer T·C 17:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the player has the significant coverage in independent, reliable sources required to pass GNG, then it shouldn't matter whether he fails NBASE. If you want to argue that the sources that Cbl62 linked don't meet GNG, then that's your prerogative, but I think they do which is why I changed to keep. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think there's problems with all of those articles. Six of them are about a former high schooler currently working his way through the minors, one is Bleacher Report, one is an interview, many (NESN, Masslive) are transactional about the fact he signed with Boston or with Baltimore, Bleacher Report is a fan site, and one's the team's "minor league report." WP:NBASE makes it pretty clear that if you don't meet the guideline, you have to do some pretty heavy lifting in order to be notable, because we could probably write an article on the majority of minor leaguers. Considering all of the coverage here is either prep sports coverage or from one of the two cities whose organisations he was in (including the ESPN interview, which was with their Red Sox blog), we can't really say he had a notable enough career for a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to disagree with the statement that "WP:NBASE makes it pretty clear that if you don't meet the guideline, you have to do some pretty heavy lifting in order to be notable, because we could probably write an article on the majority of minor leaguers." WP:BASE says "To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject." Which is essentially GNG - no more, no less. We have had many articles on minor leaguers come to AfD and get deleted because there was no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. But if an article on a minor leaguer meets that standard there is no more reason to delete it than any other article that meets the GNG standard. Rlendog (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then we'd have articles on a majority of minor leaguers, and we don't. GNG is not a be all end all - we do have WP:NOT guidelines like NOTNEWS which not only prevents us from reporting on current events, but allows us to figure out if someone's receiving certain coverage because the coverage is routine. Some coverage for players who haven't reached the majors isn't routine, but I see nothing here which demonstrates he's more or less notable than any other random minor leaguer. SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl. We're not voting !keep because he was a "high school player of the year", but because the totality of his life and career to this point have resulted in enough significant coverage independent of the subject in reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per SportingFlyer's nomination rationale and excellent analysis of the sources presented here. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBASE.4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 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 Gender in horror films. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho-biddy (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 term is a neo-logism (see talk page for full story). Google hits seem to all be echoes of this article. Current article has three citations, of which one is a MAD magazine parody, one is a one paragraph film review that uses the term in an off-hand way, and a modest write up that may have used the WP as part of its genesis. There is an associated category (Category:Psycho-biddy films) that exists to re-list the same films mentioned here. As it stands, the article does not add much of anything. Matt Deres (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Matt Deres (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NEOLOGISM none of the sources support this being a recognised term Dexxtrall (talk)
• Keep. I was able to find several sources that discuss the topic, a few of which are put out by major academic publishers. While it's not as heavily discussed as some of the other subgenres of horror, it's still discussed enough to where I'd say that it's more than just a neologism per se. I'm open to merging this somewhere if there's a good target article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My preference would also be to find it a home as part of something else. Matt Deres (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick notes: my main concerns with merging is that there's not really a great target article. Also, the article's main concern is basically this: that the term more or less originated with the article. In other words, the term wasn't in wide use or recognized prior to the article's creation in 2005.

In response to the latter issue, I'm reading over the Peter Shelley book (ended up buying a Kindle copy since I figured I'd enjoy it anyway) and he mentions that Charles Busch's play Die, Mommie, Die!, was written as a tribute to the subgenre. The play was performed in 1999 and the film adaptation was put out in 2003, so this predates the article FWIW. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's also apparently a mention in the 1972 book "Hollywood in the Sixties" by John Baxter. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a couple of merge possibilities; I was unaware of our article at Archaic mother until today, but it actually mentions "the role of the archaic mother as monstrous figure in the horror film". That article is not in great shape either, but a more generic article would be easier to build up sources for. Gender in horror films would be another possibility, but it has a different focus. Matt Deres (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It might not be a bad idea to create an article on the "Archaic mother in fiction" and create a section for the psycho-biddy genre. The character is kind of a staple. As far as genres go, the genre seems to have existed without an official title (and the plethora of names shows that there's some mild disagreement on what to call the genre), but the terms are in far more use now than they once were. I don't really think it's a neologism per se, given that it's been in use for a relatively long time and in a wide variety of outlets, FWIW. But an archaic mother in fiction article could serve as a good landing page for this subgenre.

Hmm... although all of that said... I think that there's definitely a good argument to be made for creating an article on the depictions of older women in film. Sourcing in general definitely exists. What say you? I'm still working on improving the psycho-biddy article in the hopes of saving it, but regardless of how this AfD ends I think that an article is warranted on the depiction of older women in film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think something is warranted. One of the things I found odd about the article as I found it was how narrow it was. Like, why specifically exclude stuff like Sunset Boulevard and Misery based on release date? Once you open up the field a bit, as you suggest, there are many more examples (and, hopefully, many more sources). But I think part of the exercise should be a rename; the gestation of the current article title is laid out in the talk page and it's embarrassingly self-referential. Matt Deres (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• To prevent this from becoming too long, I'm going to switch this to the talk page of this AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. I'm changing my argument after going through one of the book sources used in the article. It really only covers a short amount of films and is a little vague about things. I can also see where the term is more or less recently created. This should absolutely be covered somewhere, but I think an article on its own is premature at this point in time. The article on the portrayal of gender in horror is a good landing page for now, but I'm also working on an article on the portrayal of aging in horror, which would be a smidge better of a landing page once it's created. My new job doesn't really allow for a lot of editing and my computer is broken so I'm limited in when I can work on it, but I hope to have that article up relatively soon. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarifying my argument to specify that for now, I think it should redirect to gender in horror films. I'm working on a page on aging in horror, but I'm hitting a bit of a barrier when it comes to accessing sourcing. The sourcing is there, but so much of it is paywalled that I have to wait for access. Thankfully some of the bigger sources I want to access I can gain through the various WP projects (like WP:McFarland) but I have to wait to be approved. If anyone wants to help with this, please feel free to do so! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:50, 7 June 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 23:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Was moved from AfC after being twice declined. Can't find enough in-depth sourcing to show they meet WP:GNG, might be a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just another brave soldier that did his bit like all the others and probably managed a DCM and MM from what I can see, I have removed a mention of VC from the article, unlikely he would have a VC and nobody noticed. Sourcing at the moment is clearly iffy but doesnt appear noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the great thing about Wikipedia is that you can get all sorts of obscure information about obscure people. Like Thomas Cowley, or a bunch of old politicians from the 19th century. I’d have to disagree with you @MilborneOne, although I can definitely see where you’re coming from.

  - Tom TomVenam2021 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Or we could just move it back to draft TomVenam2021 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom currently it lacks reliable sources to pass GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:46, 7 June 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghassan Sarkis (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:NBASKETBALL "Basketball figures are presumed notable if they Have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association, Liga ACB, EuroLeague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Lega Basket Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, Greek Basket League, or Israeli Basketball Premier League. Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA draft. Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category, of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA G League." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Failing WP:NBASKETBALL is irrelevant as it only means that the subject is likely to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, not that it doesn't. Did you perform a WP:BEFORE, especially in Arabic sources, to see if there are any coverage on the subject before nominating it for deletion? I would say this (already in the article) would go towards him passing WP:GNG and according to it he has been very successful in his home contry. Alvaldi (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I note the L'Orient Le Jour piece is an interview and wouldn't count towards GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alexandermcnabb: The later part of the L'Orient Le Jour piece is indeed an interview but the first half of it goes into the subject in detail and thus goes towards WP:GNG. I'm still interested to know if any search for sources was done prior to the Afd nomination as a search in his native media is vital to prevent WP:BIAS. Alvaldi (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NBASKET. There is some routine coverage, but not enough in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and Onel. 2603:7000:2143:8500:D91F:C20D:8A2D:7B46 (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unfortunately, these are paywalled, but they suggest that a wealth of coverage does exist: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. (And that's just one English-language paper.) In the interest of combatting systemic bias, we need to give this article a chance to develop. Zagalejo (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can without evidence that the paywalled articles provide GNG level coverage assume that they do. That would introduce a bias against subjects that indeed have verified GNG coverage. GNG does not indicate that it contemplates us making such unverified assumptions. 2603:7000:2143:8500:9979:940B:2D8A:6CEF (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I was briefly able to read some of them in their entirety before posting the links here. I must have hit my free article limit. From what I saw, they were multiple paragraph articles, primarily focused on Sarkis himself. If nothing else, I think there's enough to suggest that sufficient material is likely to exist. Similarly, I wouldn't expect to see a news report like this for some random nobody. Zagalejo (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think GNG has an exception for where material is likely to exist. I still think it is a delete, and anyone thinking it is a keep on that basis is not supplying a view supported by GNG. 2603:7000:2143:8500:9979:940B:2D8A:6CEF (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know at least some of the Daily Star articles should count towards the GNG, and a couple other sources have been presented in this discussion, so I’m satisfied the coach is notable enough. If I had easier access to sources, and an understanding of Arabic, I would try to expand the article. Unfortunately, there’s only so much I can do myself. (I don’t know if this is a problem on my end, but I can’t even translate any of the promising Arabic sources with Google Translate.) We really need some more Lebanese editors to help out with this article. Zagalejo (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as meeting gng with what we have now. And do not think we should as you suggest vote keep because we imagine the material likely exists. But if someone finds gng articles that are sufficient, I would be open to changing my mind.2603:7000:2143:8500:5146:8732:655B:4E69 (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ghassan Sarkis is a highly decorated coach on both national and international levels who clearly passes WP:SPORTSPERSON. Somehow this discussion has gone on for over ten days without anyone citing this guideline, or indeed any of the achievements listed in the article. Aside from the given sources, which show many more honors than are included in the article, the following link [[15]] is a thorough listing of Sarkis's accomplishments over the past two decades.

Also noteworthy is that the Wikipedia articles Basketball in Lebanon and Lebanese Basketball League specifically name Ghassan Sarkis as a notable coach, yet the nominator fails to mention it in his boilerplate statement. While I do not maintain this alone ends the argument, I do question the propriety of erasing articles that good faith editors request without a serious, fact-based discussion.

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 23:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gacha (apps) (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 article. I did a search and looked at the news section Goggle gave me. The only reliable source here is thecinemaholic.com. The Player.One is not reliable, and Greeks Nation looks like a blog more than a news source. A former cation is HITC, which me and Grayfell removed because it was biased. 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would also like to mention that a lot of the refs there aren't reliable or notable. 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, I couldn't find any reliable sources either. Vukky, a real human 👀 (talk to me!) 07:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, reliable sources are not available to qualify GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it's stupid and useless. I tried fixing it, but I give up. It will never be fixed. Also, users keep adding Fancruft. —ÐW^(T·C) 21:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now - The name is generic enough to cause a lot of false positives when searching, but I still couldn't find enough to prop this up. Both mobile apps and software made for younger users are areas that often have lackluster coverage. This issue isn't a problem Wikipedia can solve. The number of downloads and related videos suggest there is something here, but since sources haven't apparently caught up yet, not much that we can do. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Grayfell. The only game I can foresee meeting WP:GNG in the future is Gacha Life, as that is pretty indisputably popular. Everything else, bar perhaps Gacha Club, seems to be non-notable by all accounts beyond just our own standards. We certainly don't need a catch-all article for it. --Velvetune! t • c 01:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There are some sources on the concept of gachas but not this particular series. IceWelder [✉] 12:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence this meets GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 11 June 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. Sandstein 21:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgians in the United Kingdom (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 don't appear to be sources that provide significant coverage of this group. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No consideration of WP:ATD – see Georgian diaspora for some context. I expect WereSpielChequers can identify some good sources as he keeps talking about the place at the London meetups. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not exery ethnicity X in country Y are relevant article topics. And it is not demonstrable that this one is. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Didn't find any sources, best I found was this. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 16:22, 13 June 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. Sandstein 21:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infosys multilevel car parking (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 article is a close paraphrase of the abstract of one of its sources (the 2018 fib bulletin paper, which was written by Ajit Vasant Bhate, an employee of the company that made the building). That wouldn't necessarily be a huge issue as it could be reworded, but I'm not convinced that there are the independent secondary sources needed to establish notability according to WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. The fib bulletin source is obviously not independent (it's written by the company that made the building); the articles about the awards it was nominated for are primary (they are published by the organisations giving out the awards), and the ETCIO source is a six-sentence mini article that looks like a rehashed press release. Google doesn't give many hits, and I'm not seeing any with significant depth which were not authored by the company that made the building. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails wp:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: FYI, I started the article. Possibly the nominator has no idea about fib. Any qualified engineers with sufficient professional background can join it. The Bulletin 87 of the fib (2018) where this facility was mentioned as a award nominee has no mention of any person named Ajit Vasant Bhate; it only mentions that the jury was led by this guy.Regardless of fib mention, this article has WP:SIGCOV in multiple newspaper and publication from professional organizations. If you refer the citations, it easily passes WP:NBUILD because of its architectural and technological breakthrough. For the sake of awareness to the nominator- some other infra-structures that fib award was provided or nominated are Aurora Melbourne Central, Island Tower Sky Club, National Portrait Gallery (Australia),Shenzhen Broadcasting Center Building,AC Hotel Bella Sky Copenhagen,Térénez bridge. Best regards! nirmal (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2018 fib source that I was referring to, which seems to be the source for most of the information in the article, is this one. Ajit Vasant Bhate is given as its sole author, and the company that made the building is noted if you click on the 'Authors and Affiliations' tab. I am sure that many notable buildings have won fib awards in the past; I don't accept that all buildings nominated for such an award are automatically notable, and I'm still seeing a dearth of in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-I am not sure why you are obsessed with fib alone. Fib is only adding its notabilty. Other recognitions from Indian concrete insitute and Architecute foundation is a proof that this building passes WP:GNG unless you find a deliberate COI again. Best! nirmal (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nirmaljoshi, I'm not obsessed with anything, but that source is where most of the information in the article comes from - indeed, it presents the same information, in the same order, as the abstract of that paper - the fact that it was written by an employee of the company that built it is significant. I don't see how the other sources establish a GNG pass, it's getting brief mentions in short articles about it being nominated for an award. The only in-depth coverage that I can see is in affiliated sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Dexxtrall - fails NBUILDING. No notability found, as far as I can see just a concrete-built car park, to which there are many thousands worldwide. Doesn't look too dissimilar to a brutalist-designed car park near my birth place, yet that didn't win an award...Nightfury 11:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is funny logic and purely your opinion. How many of the car park near your house got nomination in artchitecture or engineering competitions? Oh and national awards? nirmal (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with GirthSummit's assessment of the sources. The industry awards/nominations by themselves do not appear to confer notability, and the other coverage is trivial. Seems to be just another parking garage. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:10, 11 June 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 23:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Millie Williamson (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 meet WP:NGYMNAST. Competed at the youth level, now retired. Mvqr (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't meet WP:NGYMNAST or WP:GNG. — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 01:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet criteria in WP:GNG or WP:NGYMNAST for notability.Marshelec (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 23:10, 10 June 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. Arguments split between keeping, redirecting or some other non-delete action. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previously deleted, not notable - fails WP:NSCHOOL as per WP:ORG: "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As a technicality, this is a state funded college- WP:ORG only applies to private schools. So applying WP:GNG, we have to prove there will be independent references- not find or evaluate them. In one minute of looking at one of the schools (there are multiple)Portal pages I was directed here. Closing the gap. Another ref is about community scolarships. I am not an expert on the education of Native peoples- but do see this as an equalities issue too. Another few minutes and other references will be there. Can we please we withdraw this AfD. ClemRutter (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am quoting the WP:ORG policy page: This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects,. I am just drawing this to folks' attention that you use WP:GNG for state schools and WP:ORG or WP:GNG for private schools. I agree that this is messy and doesn't help the newbie, or retain experienced editors from elsewhere who try to help out in schools. I think there are safer ways of sorting out school notability based on their affiliation, size and history. But there we are.ClemRutter (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it goes further than that. Many (probably most) private schools are non-profit, so the general notability guideline can be used for them in preference to the tougher WP:ORG. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The age and location of the school justify the presumption that there will be adequate suitable sources, so WP:NEXIST applies. Ingratis (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC) (the "previous deletion" was as an A1 in 2008). Ingratis (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The current state of the article is terribly inadequate, but there is enough in it to show that the school is an important institution in the region and deserving of a well-researched and well-written article.Sammyrice (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just saying a subject deserves a well researched article doesn't cut it unless the sources necessary to create are available. Which in this case, they don't seem to be. Since from what I can tell everything out there about it is extremely trivial. Otherwise, people who think the article should be kept can provide WP:THREE independent sources that address the subject directly and in-depth to actually make a good article with. If so, I'll be more then happy to change my vote to keep. I doubt anyone will though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just for convenience: the 'Keep' votes here are all problematic. Firstly, WP:NSCHOOL, the guideline I cited in this nomination, reads: "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." (my bold, clearly). So the idea of the profitable status of the school deserving some special treatment or status is specifically ruled out. The guideline applies to ALL schools and there is an additional requirement for for-profit schools to pass WP:ORG, which I also cite and which this school does not pass in any case. Additionally, the idea that the age and location of an institution justify the presumption of notability is not to be found (quite rightly) in any guideline. WP:NEXIST, in fact, specifically states "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive" (Again, my bold). Finally, the argument that the school is deserving of a well-researched and well-written article is clearly not in any guideline - and the question here is not what the school deserves, but whether it is notable enough to deserve anything. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've not found any more online, but a school over 100 years old in a country of high literacy (age and location) is likely to have generated more sources than have appeared here (WP:COMMONSENSE). Rather than gleefully deleting, redirect to Dubbo (WP:ATD). Ingratis (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dubbo#Education. VV 20:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, reading the above, why is there so much discussion about WP:NORG and WP:GNG? looking at the "nutshell" for norg: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.", and at gng: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," the same, so whats the issue? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd be fine with redirecting to the identified target as an alternative to deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, has anybody looked at Trove for sources (sorry i cant at the mo as work beckons:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 16 June 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. Sourcing to meet GNG seems rather tenuous at the moment, but I don't think there is quite enough consensus to delete at this time. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Love Affair (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 film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, coverage that exists is mundane (here is the casting, here is the trailer) and film appears to have had no post release coverage BOVINEBOY2008 21:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: Fails GNG and NFILM. Nothing found to support notability. Kolma8 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage found in Variety [[16]] Donaldd23 (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have some coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets basic and variety is ok. Desertarun (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I looked for sources but did not turn up enough to convince me that WP:GNG or WP:NFILM is met here as it has not, to my knowledge, received full-length reviews from two or more nationally known critics, and does not seem to be historically notable or award-winning otherwise. WP:BASIC is about people, so I assume thet above comments are referring to another guideline like WP:SIGCOV, but the Variety source is kind of weak — it's just a 127-word announcement about the film being at AFM, its casting, and a quote from the director, and I don't think that kind of writeup is indicative of a film's notability. DanCherek (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. Notable. I added a plot and ref. Film has coverage in variety.com, rottentomatoes.com, filmaffinity.com, filmfestinternational.com, constructionsupplymagazine.com, etc. SWP13 (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Rotten Tomatoes, the film is simply listed, there are no professional reviews listed. Filmaffinity is a database website, does not speak the notability of the film. Film Fest International seems to be a website that pulls listings of films at various festivals, only lists the plot of this film and does not actually provide coverage of the film. ConstructionSupplyMagazine is a blog??? BOVINEBOY2008 09:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That Variety piece is just a casting announcement and doesn't meet the spirit of WP:NFSOURCES since the WP:FRUIT of those is really a press release that is not independent. I'm a bit surprised this didn't get more coverage... a bit sad. -2pou (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Found another piece at Artnet [[17]] Donaldd23 (talk) 02:35, 15 June 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— 16:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of Our Forest (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 film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Fails NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I understand that there is not much content in the article, but may I ask why the two reviews already present are being discounted? Library Journal is a respected review periodical, and being discussed in an academic journal Ethnomusicology seems to convey considerable notability on its own. I lean keep so far, but I'm interested to see a response. -2pou (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @2pou: These sources did not come up when I searched before nominating the article. I am glad they have been discovered in the mean time. BOVINEBOY2008 19:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes sense. Should've looked closer at the history. -2pou (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in view of the academic coverage of the film identified above in the Ethnomusicology journal which is significant coverage and the Library Journal although that is lesser coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the additions post-nomination are good enough to meet the WP:NFO requirements in my opinion. Thanks going out to ReaderofthePack. -2pou (talk) 20:46, 14 June 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. Consensus seems to be that this individual doesn't currently pass the bar for notability. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Van Goolen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Biography of a recently deceased mayor. While he was important in his town I can’t find any sources saying he was elected to provincial or federal positions that would make him notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the rationale of the nominator he want to delete the article because he "can’t find any sources saying he was elected to provincial or federal positions". However, Wikipedia (WP:GNG) is not about importance but about coverage. It's doesn't matter if it's local, national of internationa coverage; as long it is reliable and independent. Van Goolen had a lot of coverage in secondary independent reliable sources. And besides of the sources in the article, he will have much of the coverage in offline sources; for instance he was interviewed in the VRT talk show Saffloer over de Vloer on 22 May 1990 (see here). SportsOlympic (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Interviewed on talk show" doesn't help to make him notable. Notability is not established by sources in which he's doing the speaking, it's established by sources in which he's the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG as current news coverage such as [18][19][20][21][22][23] seems enough to qualify general notability guidelines. I also agree with SportsOlympic, (WP:GNG) is not about importance but about coverage. Jaysonsands (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If he had been elected to a federal or provincial body he would certainly be notable. For mayors the situation is less clear. Recent AfD outcomes for mayors have reinforced the consensus that most mayors are not notable; those in charge of major world cities are and others might be for one reason or another, but not just because they were a mayor. It is also presumed that all mayors and other elected office holders will get some press coverage, do interviews etc. But WP:NPOL makes clear that this isn’t enough to make them notable, otherwise more or less all elected local officials would be notable, which they aren’t. Mccapra (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources indicated by Jaysonsands all are local except the last one, which I’m afraid I can’t access. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Of the sources listed above by Jaysonsands, one is his profile on the self-published website of the town he was mayor of, which is not a notability-supporting source as it isn't independent of him, while all of the others that I can see (I'm having the same problem as Mccapra with the last one) are just multiple repeat hits of "mayor dies" on March 23, 2021. But the notability test for a mayor does not hinge on how many news outlets you can find to have given him one-shot coverage on the day of his death — it hinges on how much career coverage you can find while he was alive, because it has less to do with being able to verify that he existed and far more to do with being able to write a substantive article about his political significance. Specific things he did as mayor, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. Just showing a one-day blip of coverage on the day of his death just makes him a WP:BIO1E, and establishing his notability as a mayor requires much more than that. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being mayor for 3 years of a town with 15,000 people doesn't come close to showing notability as a politician. I don't see the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. The coverage of his death is one event and only shows that he existed, neither of which is sufficient to show notability. The last source mentioned by Jaysonsands is a funeral home and lacks the significant independent coverage required to help show notability. All local politicians receive local coverage, but very few are WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Based on the sources we have in front of us, he's not notable as a mayor - the problem with the "not about importance but coverage" argument is that there are some types of articles which get deleted in spite of the fact they receive coverage, basically on WP:AUD grounds, and local politics is one of those areas. However, I ran one of the articles through Google Translate and it appears he was indeed in the Brabant Provincial Legislature in the 1980s. What that means in terms of WP:NPOL, I'm not sure. SportingFlyer T·C 00:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there doesn't seem to be an entity called the "Brabant Provincial Legislature", but there is a "Provincial Council of North Brabant", which the computer translation might be referring to. The issue is what does the term (in my google translate) "successor" mean? I'm not sure they ever served on the provincial council. Without a reference which shows that they did, fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Provincial Council of North Brabant" is a council in the Netherlands, this article is about a Belgian politician. I think you mean the nl: Provincieraadsverkiezingen. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:50, 13 June 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 Peter Tatchell. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tatchell Foundation (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 organization, but fine to merge into the biography of Peter Tatchell Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The instructions for proposing a merger are at WP:Merging#Proposing a merger. They do not involve starting a deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Organisation so closely identified with its eponymous founder, so no clear need for seperate article unless there is sustained coverage independent of that relating to the founder, so could easily merge and redirect to his own article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 11 June 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. Moved to draft namespace. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 18:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poornachandra Mysore (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 do not believe this article follows the notability guideline for biographies as little work has been done to demonstrate the notability of the topic. Owen250708 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Owen250708 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Kolma8 (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify at this stage. There is an indication for WP:BASIC with the moonwalk thing. And there is a film BB5 (film) with him as lead that might become notable (I am hoping to draftify that too for now). Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:51, 8 June 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 23:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Philippe (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 meet WP:NPOL. Has not held office; candidate only. Searching finds only routine coverage of election. MB 20:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MB 20:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – there's nothing more than routine local coverage of his candidacy, which generally has been considered insufficient for establishing notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As usual, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won — the notability test for politicians is holding an NPOL-passing office, not just running for one. But nothing here establishes that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of running for office, and just adding a bit of purely run of the mill campaign coverage, of the type that every candidate for office always gets in their local media, would not be enough to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As of now, a non-notable political candidate JW 1961 ^Talk 13:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails NPOL. TheDreamBoat (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above, also looks like an unsourced BLP, unless I missed a reference somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article doesn't appear notable to me. Don't have any reliable sources.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:55, 12 June 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Generally unsourced metalcore band. I cannot find much in the way of coverage beyond a brief AllMusic profile and a few one-liner mentions of their breakup in 2007 quoting their MySpace profile. There may be other coverage out there, but they're generally being outcompeted in searches by an obscure firearms manufacturer and systems based on other things called Calico, of which there are many. I am just not seeing sufficient substantial coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability, nor sourced evidence of anything else in WP:BAND. ~ mazca ^talk 19:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ mazca ^talk 19:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Three full-length albums on Eulogy meets WP:MUSIC; AMG bio already cited in source; a number of contemporaneous reviews are still available online (AltPress, Scenepointblank, Allmusic again, Cleveland Scene). Chubbles (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that show independent critical analysis of their works so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 10 June 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. Consensus on current notability seems to be a bit murky, but there are signs that this person's notability might become more clear in the near future. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akil Kumarasamy (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 writer; author of one book, that has received a non-notable award. Sources cited are primary, and a search finds nothing better, that is actually about her and not about her book (the best I could find is an article in Telegraph India, but it's an interview). Fails WP:GNG / WP:AUTHOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dismal swamp, indeed. Per nom, award not notable, coverage not notable, subject not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's a lot of coverage of her debut book, which I had expected to include enough biographical material to meet GNG, but it looks like the book reviews have focused on just the book itself for now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY due to revisions and additions of sources, including reviews and an interview with commentary on her as an author, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST. Per WP:AUTHOR, she has created [...] a [...] well-known work, as demonstrated by the multiple 'best of' and 'recommended'-style lists her book Half Gods has appeared on, e.g. Scroll.in, Village Voice, PEN America, New York Times, USA Today and Redbook, and in addition, the book has been the primary subject of multiple independent [...] reviews, e.g. New York Times, New Yorker, Hindustan Times, Publishers Weekly, and The Hindu. Per WP:BASIC, there is an interview with AAWW Magazine that includes commentary on her as a writer, and WP:BASIC also notes, Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject, so biographical information can continue to be added to the article from interviews that have found her worthy of notice, including from Scroll.in, The Telegraph India, and The Massachusetts Review, as well as at least one other at least partially primary source that appears to WP:NEXIST (i.e. the NYT review notes there is a 2017 interview available), but her notability as an author seems supported by the WP:SECONDARY sources and the WP:AUTHOR guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC) There is also this review/interview from Open Magazine that includes biographical information and commentary about her as an author. Beccaynr (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY due to the work done by Beccaynr. VV 11:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also think reviews that have been added since my previous comment: Los Angeles Review of Books, Kirkus Reviews, and The Millions, provide significant biographical context in addition to discussing the book, and the interviews help make this more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Award winning WP:AUTHOR. pburka (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AUTHOR doesn't actually mention 'award winning' as a satisfying criterion. WP:ANYBIO does, but it requires the award to be "well-known and significant", which a non-notable college award isn't. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Annual Bard Fiction Prize includes a $30,000 cash award and an appointment as a writer in residence at Bard College for a semester, so it seems to help support her notability per WP:AUTHOR #4 ("won significant critical attention"), even if it does not strictly meet WP:ANYBIO. Beccaynr (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I thought this was such a clear keep that it didn't require further explanation. Half Gods is indisputably notable. It was widely reviewed and won several awards. Wikipedia should include an article about either the book or its author. pburka (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment WP:NAUTHOR is quite specific that to be considered notable as an author, someone should be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - book reviews (esp. IMHO in book review sites) don't reflect this, or reflect "significant critical attention". Book reviews contribute to the notability of a book not an author. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR#3 specifically mentions reviews as contributing to the notability of the author, as discussed above, and the volume of critical attention, per #4, appears to be "significant." Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, c'mon now. WP:AUTHOR#3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. IN ADDITION..." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the highlighting in my first comment to clarify that I was quoting "in addition" from WP:AUTHOR#3; and to further clarify why I think the book is 'well-known,' it is due to the coverage by multiple national news outlets in India and the United States. Beccaynr (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Question When reading WP:ANYBIO, do you also interpret it to require all three (a well-known and significant award or honor, part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, and an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary)? I have interpreted criteria in the same section as WP:ANYBIO, including WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENT as having a similar implied "or" due to the nature of the factors listed. Beccaynr (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see both guidelines as OR lists. But I also see 'a well-known and significant award or honor' (WP:ANYBIO) in books as a national award rather than a college bursary or award. FWIW! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable at this time. There is no doubt she has been noticed for her first novel, but its early days, but the award isn't prestigious. scope_creep^Talk 21:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After her debut short story collection, she also has written a novel that is set to be published, so her work as an author is more developed than one major published work. Beccaynr (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the novel hasn't been published yet, wouldn't that just make this WP:TOOSOON? I think that it's extremely likely that the subject will be notable in the not too distant future, but a published book and a yet-unpublished book do not an oeuvre make. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because the WP:AUTHOR guideline only requires one work, and Kumarasamy has already published multiple works - her first book is a collection of short stories, several of which had been previously published in literary journals. The upcoming novel emphasizes how her career appears to be well-established, and the Bard College prize/appointment as a writer-in-residence also helps emphasize how she is regarded as an important figure [...] by peers per WP:AUTHOR#1, and similarly therefore not WP:TOOSOON for an article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least half the text of this article is about her first book, which I think we all agree is notable. A reasonable alternative to deletion would be to rename the article to Half Gods and reorganize it slightly to focus on the book rather than the author. But see User:Pburka/Sole authors of notable books for why I think it's preferable to keep the article as is. pburka (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to the argument that the short stories count as multiple works, but I think that suggesting that AUTHOR should routinely allow biographies of writers with only one published work is a stretch. We're intentionally vague with our bounds on stuff like this to allow for exceptions in the case of authors whose single work is of immense fame and significance (e.g. To Kill a Mockingbird), but unless the single work in question is a household name classic I don't think a single well-reviewed work is sufficient. All in all, I think I'm leaning towards neutral here: I'm not fully convinced by the keep arguments, but they do have some merit and I think that it's pretty clear that it's only a matter of time for the subject to unambiguously cross the threshold of notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per arguments put forward by Beccaynr. This goes a long way in correcting Wikipedia's POC bio blindspots. JeanPaulMontmartre (talk) 12:38, 3 June 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Community Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not seeing the notability here, sourcing seems to be almost exclusively local or from the theater itself. 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 12:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Seems to be of purely local interest. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• save Deleting isn’t worthy. This page was operating for a long time before this and until the idea to update it was brought up it stayed active. This theatre will become much more active and citizens and visitors in the County of Fairfield, CT may be interested in learning about the rich History. This is a town landmark and would not be worthy or logical of removing.

There are hundreds of "local landmarks" in the area, and yet none of them (unless they are listed on the NRHP or other notable register) have articles. It doesn't matter if people may be interested in learning about the rich history, that's not why we keep articles. I'd also like to point out that the above user appears to have joined Wikipedia for the purpose of voting here.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What good would it do in deleting this Wiki Page. Local interest or not, people care about this. Also might I remind EVERYONE that Wikipedia literally says the point of a Wiki page is to benefit others as a free source of information on everything. I would also like to point out that the reason for articles of discussion is not to talk about other readers, but to see if deletion is necessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabbott203 (talk • contribs)

• Keep. There is coverage cited in article, including in The New York Times, July 23, 2006, and Fairfield Citizen-News "Don't Let The Lights Dim On Community Theatre". There is more coverage available. It's a community theatre; practically any such thing is likely going to be notable; wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION applies. --Doncram (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This appears to be a run-of-the-mill amateur theatre group, with no particularly noteworthy history or distinguishing features. I agree with User:Locomotive207's comments above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Having reviewed the two sources, I would not say that it's just a case of minor local coverage. State-wide coverage is broad enough for that not to apply. As well as the sourcing present in-article, we have source 1, source 2, source 3 and so on. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nosebagbear. Further the theatre itself is located in the Fairfield Historic District which is in the National Register of Historic Places.4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 16 June 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Moved to Henry Levy House Djflem (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry levy house (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, non-notable structure with no claim to significance or importance, no independent sources/coverage/events other than being used as a filming location a couple of times. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The building is a historical landmark. --Elnon (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved: > Henry Levy House Djflem (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to Henry T. Oxnard Historic District. The house is a contributing property to the district (see NRHP nomination form p. 20 "One of the few houses designed by Los Angeles architect, Homer Glidden in 1914, the Henry Levy house is an outstanding example of a three story craftsman shingle style house with Tudor influences ... The second story is shingled whereas the first story has medium clapboard siding. The wood trim under the front gable and roof shingles resembling thatching suggest a Tudor influence. The notched beams under the eaves and the use of brick on porch columns and chimney lend a Craftsman feeling...."). My preference would be to merge to the historic district but if the content would be out of WP:PROPORTION at that article keeping as a WP:SPINOFF seems reasonable. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Henry T. Oxnard Historic District. Standalone page is not possible due to soures.Aishaa14 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Henry T. Oxnard Historic District as standalone page will require more WP:RS. Jaysonsands (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Briefly: Too much to merge, already, and material is supported by independent sources, and sources provide info for further development on details of the Tudor and Craftsman styling inside and out, and for development on the significance of Henry Levy. Doncram (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2017 American Bungalow source to the article, and added the National Archives-published version of the NRHP document [Benny M. and Rosanne Moss (June 8, 1998). National Register of Historic Places Registration: Henry T. Oxnard Historic District. National Archives. Retrieved June 13, 2021. Includes photos from 1998, with #96 depicting Henry Levy House on page 179 of PDF document.] I removed two "primarysource" type tags on items in the article, as they seemed derogatory for the purpose of aiding the AFD deletion of the article. There were/are no statements of fact that are questioned by anyone; the so-called primary sources are fine to include (as primary sources always are, when used appropriately).

It is often useful, as here, to split a contributing building article out of an article about a historic district. Merging the supported, useful information would swamp the district article, making it unduly about the one property. In some other historic district articles, there are lists or tables covering the contributing properties, but even if that was already done in this HD article, it would still be appropriate to only summarize a bit about this house and leave a {{main}} link to its separate article. The house is, however, one of the more significant contributing buildings out of 139 in the district: it is bigger and more substantial than most (look at the pics), and there's more detail about it in the NRHP document, and it was home of significant person Henry Levy. Interesting to me to find the NRHP document covers 8 other houses of the 139 owned at times by cashiers or tellers or bookkeepers of the Bank of A. Levy or of a Henry Levy company (found by searching on "Levy" in the NRHP document).

More about Henry Levy can be said, including that he was one of a group of Jewish businessmen from Alsace, France, who built businesses in the area:

Merchants from other areas of the county, particularly of Hueneme established new businesses or a second business in the thriving town of Oxnard. These merchants included Jews from the French province of Alsace whose families settled and started successful businesses in Hueneme and later Oxnard, including Lehmann, Samuel Weill, Moise L. Wolff, and Achille and Henry Levy. Samuel Weill, a partner in the Murphy & Weill Merchandise and Grocery of Oxnard built a large residence at 125 N. F street in the proposed district. [page 40 of NRHP document]

I provided link to Ernest A. Batchelder, noted Pasadena tile-maker; it is quite a mark of distinction that this house has two Batchelder fireplaces. Not quite, but almost, as significant as having a Louis Tiffany stained glass window, say. And there is more info about other details of Tudor and Craftsman style on the outside, and of Craftsman details in the interior such as pocket doors and more.

There's more to say, with sources, and this is already too big to merge, so keep. --Doncram (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S.: Sure, there's a little bit of unsupported new stuff to be removed if sources not immediately found, e.g. that "In the early 2000s, the kitchen was remodeled and modernized, and a fence installed around the property. In 2020, a large koi pond was installed in the backyard." But the fact that this home is used as a major filming location for at least one movie and three episodes of a recurring show adds to the notability of the place, and is interesting, and is indicative that this is an extraordinary place. --Doncram (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I note more information has been added to the article, it is mostly remarking upon the unremarkable. Fine American Arts & Crafts house? Check. Notable, subject to multiple articles in RS? Uncheck. Merge to Henry T. Oxnard Historic District by all means, but this property (currently being marketed for $1.5 million I can't help but note - that's what the American Bungalow source is, a sales listing!!!) does not merit a standalone page IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That listing was in 2017; i presume it is not for sale now. For historic properties it is often when they are up for sale that a lot of good coverage happens; I recall that about some Arts & Crafts house designed by Ward Wellington Ward in Syracuse New York (and listed on the National Register) that there was a multiple-page article in the Syracuse papers about the house's history and detail, when it was open for visiting at real estate open house, when it was up for sale. The coverage was fine, whether it was in a Real Estate section or not I don't recall, it was still coverage of general interest to regional readers and had accurate info about that house's tilework from a Syracuse-area tile producer (Syracuse was in fact a significant center of Arts & Crafts, BTW) and stained glass in interior french doorways, etc., which I went to visit. I lost some text from a computer crash in my earlier post above; i was also skeptical about the American Bungalow source, and don't know if it only covers houses for sale, i.e. is a real estate sales vehicle or not. But the article does include photos and is valid to include in the article at least in an external source reference kind of way. Suppose one disregards that as a source, though, there is still plenty else. --Doncram (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfactorily ref'd for GNG; merge would be disproportionate to district article.Djflem (talk) 18:39, 14 June 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)} 22:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Phillips (animator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Massively over the top promotional lovefest for non notable animator. Lacks independent coverage about him in reliable sources. There is a lot of sources but nothing good for gng. Primary, blogs, listings, him talking about himself and minor mentions. Nothing good for gng. No significant roles in notable productions. None of the awards are major. TV/film credits fall short of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"gng"? What does that mean? No significant roles in notable productions? He's the assistant director on Bob's Burgers (even the upcoming feature film), was effects director on A Goofy Movie, on An Extremely Goofy Movie, on The Lion King 2 1/2, created some of the most popular animation shorts on Newgrounds (the Brackenwood series), is backed by Epic Games through their Epic Megagrant for the short film project he's working on at the moment. I think he's notable enough. Is also a general former animator at Disney Australia, when that studio was in existence, having worked on a lot of their animated TV series, both doing some character work but mostly animating effects and later directing the effects department. Deletionism is a disease. Constructivism is the only way. --Luka1184 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG. Assistant director of Bob's Burgers, one of many working behind even more directors. "effects director" on the goofy movie? A role so significant that it's not mentioned? Perhaps because he wasn't. He was an inbetween artist, someone who copies someone else's work. The other movies, one of a large crew. Not a significant role. One of the most popular on a single website also does not cut it without good independent coverage. Working on a new short does noes make one notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator's argument that the subject does not meet WP:GNG is unconvincing. A vaguewave rant about lack of notability, but no real effort to provide an actual source by source analysis of why the cited secondary sources present in the article are not suitable or adequate. Even with the removal of the subject's social media accounts and some primary sources, there is still adequate sourcing to demonstrate notability. Further, nominator did not provide an explanation that WP:BEFORE was done before the nomination was made, so perhaps this is in fact a bad faith nomination. Haleth (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of vague waves, in this entire attp you have failed to explain how he is notable. You have made a vague claim of adequate sourcing yet you have failed to identify a single good source. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to have some significant roles passes GNG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Vague Wave. What roles? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Definitely written as a promotional piece, not an encyclopedia entry. Needs some serious editing and trimming. Definitely has numerous primary sources that don't support any valuable content (including interviews, citations 8-11). His positions at Bob's Burgers is out of date using language as "To this day", whereas IMDB shows him ending in 2019 [24] while citing the subject's own LinkedIn page (which is also not up to date and omits another assistant director position that can be found in IMDB [25]). The sections for Selected works and Awards have no citations at all. Trimming the promotional stuff is an editing project, not a reason to delete the article. However, editing and trimming the article before AfD would certainly make it a lot easier for others to decide on whether or not the OP's nomination to delete is valid or not. If the OP's assertion is true about no extensive independent coverage for the subject/person, then WP:NBIO may not be satisfied. I'm not sure artistic notability covers it, because assistant director may not be a co-creator. Remember, notability is NOTINHERITED, and being a cast member and mentioned in IMDB doesn't make you notable no matter how notable the TV series is, especially when there are over 10 other assistant directors named that overlap the time period Adam Phillips worked there. Since OP seems most familiar with the article and subject, perhaps he should take a big pair of scissors to the article at this time. I agree that it needs a major chop. Platonk (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I just did a major edit on the article based on concerns expressed in this AfD, including removing some content related to WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:ORIGINAL, WP:VERIFY etc. I went over every section except the Dashkin section (got tired and just bundled it together, untouched). Still, most of the citations remaining in the article are either from Adam Phillips' own website bitey.com or are based on comments made by Adam Phillips in interviews. There is no news media coverage, only industry-related blogs and stuff. He may well be notable, but I don't see it yet. Platonk (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Platonk I'm late to the party here but catching up. I've looked at the page and your very helpful edits. I am inclined to agree that it still looks/feels too much like a CV. My approach would be to substantially edit the page based strictly on reliable sources, in effect start afresh (like what I recently did here that resulted in saving the page from deletion (see discussion here)), but I don't want to tread on your toes or belittle your valiant clean-up work! However, having just searched for reliable sources via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (deeper and broader than Google) I can only find a single reference, so I think this page cannot pass GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Okay, I've mulled it over for a few days and I'm ready to place a vote on this AfD. This guy has basically been a technician and occasional supervisor in the field of animation, also done some documentation/training. This is no different than anyone who has ever been in technical/computer positions for one or two decades. However, he has ZERO coverage that doesn't include a direct interview with him (all are primary sources by Wikipedia editing definitions). His stints at Bob's Burgers didn't net him anything more than "film credits" -- which are important in the film industry, because it's part of your portfolio to help get hired for your next gig, but is no more notable than saying he was "on staff" for a particular film. A search for "adam phillips bob's burgers" finds not even a brownie point by Wikipedia notability standards. His main client from freelancing (Toon Boom) used him liberally and seemed happy with his work, but their coverage of him is not "outside of the industry". There are zero book reviews of the first three works/books in the article; the last has a single review [26] which basically says the book is part of the company's manual set for the software: "With apparent co-operation from the company itself, the book serves as an extension of the software’s official literature." He just doesn't reach notability by WP:NBIO or WP:GNG standards ("received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject ... Primary sources ... do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject"). I vote to delete the article (even after all the work I did on the article, which was basically an exercise in seeing if I could do something or learn something to help break the impasse of this relisted AfD). Platonk (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have reviewed all arguments above, but looking strictly independently, there are significant coverage on him from several sources such as [27], [28], [29], etc. Peter303x (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of your three examples, the first is a brief mention with no depth of coverage, the second is not independent (was published by his client, basically a press release about an event), and the third is an interview (primary source). None of which contribute towards notability, though they may contribute towards content, per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Platonk (talk) 00:52, 13 June 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 Reference desk. Or elsewhere per any subsequent consensus that may form. Sandstein 21:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a Librarian (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 page has a lot of sources directly on the Ask a Librarian's website which means that the sources are not independent. Although there are independent and reliable sources in the references section, there don't seem to be a lot of reliable sources that support this topic. A search for reliable sources doesn't help. Interstellarity (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Florida_electronic_library where it's covered. Valid search term, but not independently notable. Star Mississippi 01:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Florida_electronic_library as above. Jaysonsands (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Reference desk and merge content Though here the Florida example is called out, there are multiple libraries worldwide that have this same type of program, and the reference desk could use a bit of an update about those modern programs. Nate • (chatter) 18:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Reference desk I'm sure this type of program is not exclusive to Florida.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karolina Protsenko (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 Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It sounds like she has every chance of having an article in a few years, but at the moment it seems a bit too soon. Furius (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - As of June 2021, she has more than 5.2 million subscribers on YouTube and has been covered in international media such as the Hindustan Times and The New York Times. -- Evans1982 (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I see the Hindustan Times piece, but not the NYTimes article. Could you link it please? Furius (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I know, we do not have a notability standard which is linked to number of YouTube subscribers. "Subscribing" to a YouTube channel involves no real commitment on the part of the viewer, just clicking a link, and people subscribe to a great number of them, so the number of subscribers seem to me to be a poor indication of notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Evans1982 provided the following link to the NY Times article: [30]. Furius (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Times article is a passing mention in an article about an entirely different subject ("Why Do Hoax Videos Proliferate When Disaster Strikes?"). In its entirety:

  In fact — the presence of a major highway might have been a tip-off — it was taken in California, during wildfires last year, and first appeared at the time on the Facebook page of the 10-year-old Ukrainian violin prodigy Karolina Protsenko. (The voice we hear is Protsenko, praying in Russian.)

  Such a mention does not establish the subject's notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for this - Evans1982 posted it to my talk page rather than here for some reason, so I was passing it on, but I didn't have access to the text. Furius (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Karolina Protsenko is quite notable, but I think the page should be shortened and made more neutral in order to keep it here. --Sharky tale (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I created this article chiefly using the Hindustan Times and another reference. The article had only a couple of references at the time of this deletion nomination, but now it has many. I think this would establish notability to a sufficient level. Let me see what other editors say. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, the other refs are mostly passing mentions, and are not in-depth. For those !voting "Keep", can you specify how the subject passes the notability requirements of WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added two more citations (a newspaper and a magazine). Not sure if these meet our requirement. User:Beyond My Ken, can you please validate and confirm? Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (borderline weak) Changed to Neutral - In a day where fame can be achieved online, I happen to think subscriber numbers does carry some weight (particularly once into the millions). We tend to judge notability solely on the quality of referencing available, and usually rightly so, although in subject matters such as this, I also think notability as judged by real people (subscribers) can't be overlooked (especially when a greater number mean the media begin to take notice). Looking at a few videos, it's not hard to see why it's already 5M+ subscribers. I vote weak because there is a chance it may just be a little early but on balance I think it's worth inclusion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, can you point to a Wikipedia notability policy which says that the number of YouTube subscribers equates to notability for our purposes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for the edit revision (looks like it was an EC as I didn't submit straight away, so apologies there). Secondly, I don't suggest youtube subscriber numbers is a valid criteria in policy; I merely point out that it can contribute towards notability and subsequent mentions in the media. It can't be used on its own as a rationale for article retention and I wasn't basing my !vote solely on this, but just expressing a view in relation to the existing discussion. I also agree regarding your comment on the NY Times mention and consider this void when establishing notability; fortunately, other references are at least relevant. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my (already weak) vote to "neutral" as clear notability as per policy is hard to ascertain beyond dispute. There is no doubt this is a very talented girl and with a big future ahead. While I am sure an article can exist without question in the not so distant future, as I noted in my opening !vote, it *may* be a little early. While wikipedia does not recognise subscriber numbers, I don't think it's an irrelevance, although it is largely subjective in how relevant it is to the discussion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Since when is Wikipedia a commercial platform? Delete all other languages as well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c22:b024:5800:d822:d860:8885:462b (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Creating a biographical article of encyclopedic value doesn't make Wikipedia a commercial platform. The discussion here is only whether the topic on hand has acquired sufficient notability per Wiki standards and whether the sources are reliable. Please share your opinion on that. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - She has 5.2 million subscribers and is expected to have a career. For example - Laura Dekker should also be deleted from the German Wikipedia before her circumnavigation, today, in retrospect it would be shameful if the article would have been deleted. --Btr (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• {1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
• (2) The notability policies of en.wiki and de.wiki differ
• (3) Again, please point to where number of YouTube subscribers carries notability
• (4) Unless you can show how the subject fulfills WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, you have not shown notability under Wikipedia's policies. This is not a !vote, nor a popularity contest, it's a discussion in which arguments citing Wikipedia policy should prevail. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Utterly strong keep:

• I honestly do believe that 5.35 (to this moment) million subscribers in the subject´s main YouTube cannel is enough proof of notability.
• Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the opinion stated here that the number of followers/subscribers/social media fans is not a proof of notability. If that was the case, no Youtuber or social media personality should have a WP article. And there are countless of them.
• The subject has 6.4 million subscribers overall (there are 4 more YouTube channels that are not being taken into Account for this discussion) (Source: Socialblade.com)
• Again, overall, her videos had been viewed over 830 million times. (Ibid)
• Over 8.1 million followers on Facebook
• She has not only been featured on The Ellen Show. She has appeared in a number of other mainstream TV shows, such as Access Hollywood and New Mexico Living.
• She played a concert at Fairieworlds 2019, as an ambassador for Teen Cancer America.
• Along with America’s Got Talent participant Angelica Hale (already in Wikipedia and with far less followers in her social media) and piano prodigy Kayden Kelly, she played a concert in “Prodigies, a Million Dreams” concert in Santa Fe, NM, 2020.
• She had 3 collaboration live videos with Allie Sherlock, a notable Irish teenage girl, already in WP too. Other YouTube collaborations include fellow Ukrainian Barvina (9 million subs and almost 2 billion views), Dang Matt Smith (12.8 million subscribers and over 2.5 billion views) and Daniele Vitale (3.6 million subscribers and 565 million views).
• She is credited with an acting role in the 2020 thriller film “Sightless” (IMDB)
• Along with 3 other young violinists, she performed the cover of the song “Beautiful Life” for Dreamworks’ “Abominable” film.
• She has published the music sheets of the violin arrangements she creates for her pop songs covers. These arrangements are often used by other fellow violinists.
• She mastered the Suzuki method books (10) at age 10. Although rare, videos of her playing virtuoso pieces from Mozart, Bach, Paganini, Beriot and Kabalevsky can be found on different sources online.

I hope this helps to increase the chances of keeping this article. If the consensus is keeping it, I commit to incorporate the above and make the translation to Spanish. Benedifan (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Editor indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The above comment is this editor's first and only edit to Wikipedia. The account was created one hour ago, obviously for the specific purpose of making this edit. This raises the question of whether there is sockpuppetry or off-Wiki canvassing going on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a single one of these bullet points is responsive to the question of whether the subject is notable according to Wikipedia standards. I would advise all "Keep" commenters to read WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG and provide the specific information those standards require in order for the subject to be Wiki-notable. As I read them, that's not the case, and no one has yet provided any policy-based argument for her being notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I didn't do this before, because I thought it was painfully obvious, but that's clearly not the case. Here are the requirements of WP:NMUSIC:

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.^[1]
   • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries^[2] except for the following:
     • Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.^[3]
     • Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
     • Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
   • Only one reference meets the requirements here, so there are no "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable"
2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. No
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. No
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.^[4] No
5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). No
6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.^[5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.) No
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. No
8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. No
9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. No
10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).
    • The above comment claims she played on music for a major-studio film. No source is given, and this is not mentioned in the article.
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. No
12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. Appeared on the Ellen Degeneres Show

To me, this all adds up to a lack of notability at this time. The only criteria the subject meets is the last, and appearing on a talk show as a curiosity is hardly an indicator of actual notability. If it were, then all the guests on the Jerry Springer Show would have their own articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. "She has X number of subscribers/followers" is irrelevant.-KH-1 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Beyond My Ken's WP:NMUSIC list above really nailed it. Having a large amount of subscribers (apparently 6.4 million across 4 accounts, but this number isn't mentioned in the article at all to begin with so stop trying to use it) doesn't mean anything if there's no notable coverage, and as Ken said, being on a talk show for a little while doesn't mean anything. Also, hi Ken. AdoTang (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom . No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of Wikipedia notability at this time.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I went through the sources and Googled her for more, and don't see enough coverage. She had a viral performance and has YouTube followers, but without corresponding media coverage and album sales information, it's WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 16 June 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Menua Hovhannisyan (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 are sources related to the receiving of the Hero of Artsakh award but that's it. There are no more sources and only receiving this or similar awards wouldn't make a person notable. Nanahuatl (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hero of Artsakh is the highest military award of the country, which makes any person who received this award notable. I will add more sources about his bio to the article, if needed. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: receiving the highest military award for any country is enough reason to be notable. By comparison would you say that someone who received a Victoria Cross is unnotable? the related war was pretty recent too, that kind of explains the relative scarcity of sources. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The same thing has happened in this discussion and I am sure it always happens, ethnic defending... Just because someone receives an awards, doesn't mean that person is notable. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.--Nanahuatl (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gunay Aliyeva has nothing to do with this article. She did not receive any highest title. I updated the article and added links about the biography. Hero of Artsakh is the highest title. To understand this, it is enough to look at the list of recipients (Robert Kocharyan, Serzh Sargsyan, Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan, Monte Melkonian etc.). As for reliable sources. About Armenian/Artsakhi heroes write Armenian/Artsakhi sources, and this is a normal practice for Wikipedia. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, I only take that as an example of the ethnic nationalism in Wikipedia. For some reason, some nations defend articles from those nations as if they defend their countries. Relax :) The other recipients are irrelevant per Wikipedia:OTHERCONTENT. If there are sources to prove its notability, be my guest to show :) All the sources are shown are related either about his death or the decoration, that's all. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added links related to his bio, not just the award. Are you hinting that independent sources should be non-Armenian? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nop, haven't said that, have I? Bios are created and published right after the death, therefore, it doesn't meet WP:SUSTAINED. Nanahuatl (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SOLDIER, which formerly asserted a presumption of notability for those achieving the highest award, was deprecated earlier this year as "is no longer considered by WikiProject Military history to be useful guidance on the notability of military people, and its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged by the project". If there is no substantial coverage in independent RS I support deletion or redirect to Hero of Artsakh. (t · c) buidhe 18:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point @Buidhe:. Also we have to mention that "subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia" as I mentioned above. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there is still from Wikipedia:Notability (people) (Additional criteria) "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." no. 1 of WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.", so if Hero of Artsakh is deemed "well-known and significant"..... Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely"... Not "certainly"... Nanahuatl (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It certainly appears to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. However, I'm not convinced that the highest award of a small, self-proclaimed state of 150,000 people that has already awarded 24 of its "highest awards" in the thirty years of its existence (compared with, say, a major nation like the UK, which has awarded only 15 Victoria Crosses in 75 years!) can be considered to meet the criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This small country in the entire history of its existence has suffered three large-scale wars, border skirmishes, massacres, territorial changes and much more. I think it would be inappropriate to underestimate the title of "Hero of Artsakh" and its significance. In any case, the decision about this article will automatically affect other recipients of this award as well. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The decision would not automatically affect other articles. Someone would have to go article by article and nominate each one for deletion, and I'm very certain (and would !vote keep in those instances) that multiple would be kept. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I would consider being awarded the Hero of Artsakh award sufficient to pass WP:ANYBIO, though a lot of them have been awarded Artsakh has been engaged in quite a lot of fighting over the years. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Hero of Artsakh is not a relevant award under WP:ANYBIO #1. This is because Artsakh is an internationally unrecognized polity of cca 150k people. When I say internationally unrecognized, I mean 0 countries have recognized it, including Armenia that in many ways administers it, which is reflected in the Artsakh article: Artsakh is heavily dependent on Armenia, and in many ways de facto functions and is administered as part of Armenia. However, Armenia is hesitant to officially recognise Artsakh. Since Artsakh is such a small polity, and not a very independent one, and in agreement with Necrothesp's and Devonian Wombat's observations of the reward seeming a bit disproportionately prolific when compared to more populous/established nations (Artsakh has 0.2% population of UK, and UK has also been in wars in the same time frame), I would say that the reward is not a well-known and significant honor of the required order in this context. It is reasonably significant (perhaps not quite sufficiently), but certainly not sufficiently well-known. Apart from this, I don't see other grounds for notability, such as WP:GNG. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artsakh is a de facto independent country with its own constitution, laws, economy and army. I see no reason to belittle the title of Hero of Artsakh. The highest award, the Hero of Artsakh, in itself speaks of significance. This state award is widely known in Artsakh, Armenia and in the Armenian Diaspora. I also misunderstand your logic. If you compare any X state with the UK, then any award will look "not well-known" and "insignificant". The same applies to the number of people living in Artsakh, which has nothing to do with the topic at all. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De facto is contrasted with de jure. In contrast to the de jure status of the territory of Artsakh as Azerbaijani territory, de facto Artsakh is not Azerbaijani because it's outside of Azerbaijan's territorial control, but that doesn't automatically mean Artsakh is independent. According to the abovementioned article, facts are such that Artsakh is heavily dependent on Armenia. One can not be both dependent on someone and independent. Artsakh is nominally independent, but de facto dependent (on Armenia). To me, this reduces the significance of the award. I understand that the award is well-known in Armenia, and in the diaspora, but many other awards that we would be considering under ANYBIO #1 have a vastly wider recognition. It's just my opinion after all. It's hard to pin this standard down, it's set very generally, and simply boils down to consensus on a case-by-case basis. Kind regards. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete . It's not clear that the award itself is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hero of Artsakh itself is considered very notable in Artsakh and Armenia, and is the highest military award as others pointed out. I think the article should remain. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:56, 16 June 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 23:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FullCount 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)

Admittedly I have little idea what "reliable 3rd party coverage" would look like for a point-of-sale software system... but assuming the same prerequisites as for other software products, that would be reviews, tests, and analyses. It seems that none of that exists for this item; sources are either in-house or press releases, or listings / passing mentions. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yikesaroo. A tough one. I managed to find this from Senior Housing News (literally the only news result for any permutation of this I tried). Also found this which is from an industry group (so at least not just their own whitepaper). Neither of these are SIGCOV of the product, though. Sad! jp×g 22:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]