Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 27

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto-communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Dictionary definition without potential for growth. The term is certainly used by all kinds of sources including media, books, and journal articles, but I can't find significant coverage on the concept itself, which suggests it's not a notable one. Lennart97 (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• For reference, an article at this title was first nominated for deletion in 2005, apparently for pretty much the same reasons, which resulted in its deletion. The current article was created in 2009. Lennart97 (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per the coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.^[1][2][3][4]

SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BathTub, but expansion is needed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I appreciate the expansion so far by BathTub, but as far as I can see none of these sources address the topic of crypto-communism "directly and in detail", which would be necessary to establish the concept's notability per GNG. If a source mentions "crypto-communists" but doesn't even define the term, instead considering it self-evident that a crypto-communist is simply a secretive communist, I'd say that just confirms it is not an independently notable topic. Lennart97 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A source does not need to define the term for it to be considered significant coverage, but #4 does anyway. #1 has two pages on an instance of crypto-communism, the entirety of #2 discusses the relationship between crypto communism and soviet propaganda, and crypto-communism is the main subject of #3. I consider that to constitute significant coverage. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. #1 seems decent indeed as it discusses actual instances of crypto-communism, more of that kind would definitely help. I can't access #2 but it seems #3 and #4 are more so about suspicions of crypto-communism, which is not quite the same; of course there's plenty to be said about all kinds of persecution of suspected communists. #4 specifically introduces the concept of crypto-communism with "This belief led to rampant, vague suspicions and the notions of the crypto-communist, fellow traveler, or sympathizer.", which also makes me wonder how much overlap there is with fellow traveler, though that does seem to be something of a distinct concept. Anyway, I'm not necessarily against keeping at this point, just a bit curious about what the scope of it would actually be. If it's going to be mostly about suspicions of (crypto)communism, then I suppose it could easily be expanded with content about various red scares, McCarthyism etc. Lennart97 (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bathtub's sourcing, although i will say that I did initially roll my eyes at the thought of a communist state run on cryptocurrency. the crypto bois are at it again, i thought ;) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:34, 3 December 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 23:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Reed (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has been tagged for notability, WP:COI, WP:OR and promo-tone since 2011. It appears to be an AUTOBIO per [1] creator's original name: Pa2alanreed. While there are quite a few citations, several are permanently dead (I was able to recover only a few thru archive.org), or are trivial mentions or did not mention him at all. I tried cleaning up, but I'm uncertain if he meets our notability criteria for artists WP:NARTISTS. I couldn't find any work in notable gallery or museum collections; he does not seem to be a important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; has not developed a new or unique technique; nor created a well-known body of work. No important awards (being a "runner up" for an award does not confer notability.) Yes, he has shown his work, is skilled, and he runs his own gallery which sells his own work, but is that enough? A BEFORE search did not reveal anything (perhaps because he has a common name.) Bringing it here for input from the community. Netherzone (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. His work does not appear in any collections of notable museums, there is no monograph, and while his work occasionally appears on the secondary market, the estimates and prices achieved at auction are low. Reed has a website where he posts reviews, https://alanreed.com/reviews-and-testimonies-alan-reed-art/, but those reviews are by his customers, not independent reviewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)
• Delete This artist fails WP:NARTIST, and appears to be written by editors with CIO. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:19, 4 December 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 23:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Fjellman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER notability. Mainly, this biography seems to be too soon - Fjellman only has one feature length film, and I'm not finding much significant coverage on him overall.

I would suggest sending this to draftspace, but there is already Draft:Aaron Fjellman. I guess this could overwrite the current draft there, since this seems slighty better sourced (it at least has one reliable source: Deadline), but both need more reliable sourcing either way. Whisperjanes (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet notability guideline Mommmyy (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER upcoming not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:24, 4 December 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, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark Waters Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a television documentary film, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for films or television content. The notability claim here is essentially that the film existed, with no apparent evidence (noteworthy awards, critical attention, etc.) of any significant distinctions, and the article is "referenced" to a raw unfootnoted list of citations that aren't support for notability: two of the three come from media outlets that were directly involved in the creation of the film, and thus aren't independent of the film for the purposes of helping to validate its significance, while the third is a person's self-published personal website rather than a GNG-worthy media outlet. None of this is enough to establish notability. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:IAR and WP:CREEP. I’m unable to see how the encyclopedia or reader experience is improved by following the destructive Afd and notability guidelines which indicate this and many other informative and factually accurate articles about topics with verifiable existence need to be deleted. The guidelines need to be revamped to remove their destructive effects, but in the meantime we must simply ignore them per IAR, a pillar policy. —В²C ☎ 16:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IAR is not a free "get out of ever actually having to follow any rules at all" pass. The reader experience would not be improved by waiving any requirement for our articles to be independently sourced or pass any notability criteria — the end result of that would be that we wouldn't be an encyclopedia anymore, but a free public relations platform for people to just write anything they damn please without regard to whether the information was accurate or even interesting. IF we waive sourcing rules, for example, then people can lie in Wikipedia articles because they don't have to cite any sources to verify anything — and if we waive notability rules, then we have to keep an article about every single person or thing that ever existed at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't pass GNG or WP:NFILM. Also, it has been citation-less for 10 years. It's not even in IMDb. If it's not notable enough for anyone to ever put a citation on it, or add it to IMDb, it doesn't need to be in Wikipedia. Platonk (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It does exist, but I can't say anything more about it. Just because it's a film doesn't make it notable - I don't see how this is more notable than the article in Readers Digest July 1966 it is based on. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:25, 4 December 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. With the sources on the article currently, the article easily meets WP:GNG. WP:AFC is not a mandatory process. The circumstances of the article's creation and AFD nomination do lend themselves to suspicion of WP:GAMING the system and I'll be bringing that up with the Checkusers, but the article stands on its own merits. Aervanath (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Maltz (lacrosse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

College players hardly notable, WP:NCOLLATH, more so when no in-depth source exists to pass our WP:N. Obi Okparra (talk) 15:36, 5 November 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 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We don't seem to have a specific WP:NSPORTS section for lacrosse players, but he's played at the professional level since 2018, and a number of the article's sources look like they're in-depth enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. I certainly wouldn't say there are no such sources. clpo13_(talk) 18:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clpo13 Just found this Draft:Dylan Maltz, so this is essentially a way to game the system (WP:GAMING). Looks like a good job done by the UPE (hiding declared paid history). I am suspicious that they have nominated this article by themselves in order to get it approved fast. 79.66.223.74 (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify as per my recent findings. Created by a SPA who haven't even defended this because they just move on. This is WP:GAMING at best. An AfC reviewer should review the article. If the article creator is reading this, then please provide WP:THREE sources so we can review. A cursory look shows the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and this fails WP:NOTNEWS. 79.66.223.74 (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Hello (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 notable race horse. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:A7 Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This horse just barely meets our SNG for race horses. According to Equibase, he did win a grade one, the Arlington-Washington Futurity in 1989. WP:HEY is probably a bit of a challenge, as his prime years were pre-Google. But I’ll throw in what sources I can find. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost none of those on Arlington-Washington Futurity Stakes have articles, and many of the bluelinks aren't even for the horses! I call total BS that winning a single minor race means you can say "Screw you, significant coverage!" A "presumption" of meeting GNG does not mean it actually does. Hansel (horse), who won it the next year, says this race is Grade II. Reywas92^Talk 06:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Reywas92:, first off, be nice and assume good faith. Don’t call “BS” on people making solid discussion remarks. You can disagree without being disagreeable.Second, graded stakes races can change over the years. Some are upgraded and others downgraded, it depends on a number of factors, such as purse money offered, etc. According to Equibase, which is the standard statistical database for horse races in the USA, the Arlington-Washington futurity was a G1 at the time this horse won it… had it not been, then yes, the horse would not meet the SNG at WP:NHORSERACING. Like I said above, there’s a line, and this horse is probably a good example pf just where the line is drawn. Montanabw^(talk) 03:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak Keep As a stub which has not had any improvement I loathe to keep such articles. If it resurfaces because it passes WP:SNG then there better be improvement in the area of why it deserves to have an article. One liners like this that have been around for 10 years+ and no one has made an effort to improve are understandingly on the chopping block. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment We can all agree that it should be improved if kept. Montanabw^(talk) 02:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is why, at an admin's discretion, we relist. ✗plicit 05:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Weber (media researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Stefan Weber has no international relevancy. He is minimally relevant in the German-speaking world. He has a lemma in the German-language Wikipedia that has been in deletion discussions for years. Why he has an international lemma here and thus advertises himself, I don't understand and it is not covered by the Wikipedia rules regarding relevance. It can and must therefore be deleted. Everyone-is-awesome (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Explicit:: Why is this article still not deleted? As there is no single argument to keep this article from any user, I don't understand, why it is still online 11 days after the start of the deletion-process and 4 days after your relist. 80.108.253.13 (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and be polite. User:Explicit is a dedicated AfD volunteer and did the right thing relisting it. In fact, we can relist it again if we wish. Missvain (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If the German encyclopedia decides to keep it, we probably will as well. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean, that every locally relevant person, without any international relevancy can have an international lema? Cause then I will start to copy a lot of persons into the english wikipedia.80.108.253.13 (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nomination seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead of detailing why the sources are inadequate. Geschichte (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It makes absolutely no difference whether I like him or not. But I would like to know what criteria this lema should fulfil. Other entries are constantly being deleted that have much more relevance than this entry.80.108.253.13 (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. there are sufficient books to presume that it meets WP:AUTHOR. It would help if reviews of his books were added --then there would be no question about notability by our rules. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, he seems to pass WP:GNG on coverage such as this and plenty of other sources in this and the German version of the article. And yes, if someone is notable in Germany they're notable elsewhere, and if the IP wishes to start translating articles of notable people without coverage on English wikipedia that would be great. Rusalkii (talk) 04:09, 3 December 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'mclosing this as keep, but the macro didn't work, could someone please do the formalities DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Insko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet notability standards. All coverage on google news and archive is restricted to two pages of results from local or regional primary sources. No indication of any notable events or achievements beyond his role as the administrator of low-profile rural university, before or after his hiring in 2015. Only linked article is the one for the university. Nothing in the article indicates evidence to the contrary. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. This is an entirely invalid nomination. Per WP:NACADEMIC, Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable...The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.. As a university president, that makes Insko notable. Additionally, this seems like a coordinated deletion effort by two newly-created users. The page was proposed for deletion incorrectly by 76.168.132.234 and then nominated for deletion incorrectly by VibrantThumpcake. I think it would be helpful for that user to read WP:SOCK. KidAd • SPEAK 20:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a sock puppet or "coordinated campaign", I just forgot to log in to my account prior to initially proposing deleting. But yeah, that was me, not trying to deceive anyone. Also, my account is not new, nor is this my first valid AfD nomination. The author cites a criteria that requires a MAJOR institution. EOU does not rise to that level of significance. The article for the university itself does not indicate any departments or faculty of prominence within their respective fields, and no previous administrators have warranted their own article. The subject does not meet any other criteria for academic notability, and the article seems mostly promotional for the subject.VibrantThumpcake (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy KEEP per WP:NACADEMIC. Presidents of major academic institutions basically get their own Wikipedia articles and the subject qualifies. I'd also do a bit of Google Search and Google News search - plenty of reliable secondary sources in which he's featured, interviewed, etc. to expand this article. Missvain (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per KidAd's correct quoting of WP:NACADEMIC. The institution, being both public and accredited, certainly meets my idea of a major academic institution. Ifnord (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: what definition of "major" is being used here? At just over 100 full-time faculty, this entire school is smaller than many single departments at other universities. -- asilvering (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider asilvering's question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NACADEMIC since he is the president of the institution. Mukedits (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given the additional sources found by VincentGod11, it is unlikely that any consensus to delete will form here. The article should be updated accordingly to clarify the new sources and clarify the notability. Aervanath (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Akasa Air

Start-up airline that does not meet corporate notability and has not begun operations. Naïve Google search shows that the airline is being started up. We knew that. This article does not speak for itself and does not say why the airline is notable, other than that it will exist. An analysis of the references shows that they are mostly press releases and interviews.

This is one of two copies, in draft space and in article space. The draft was declined, so the originator also created it in article space. This may be done to prevent being moved to draft space.

The airline will be notable when it begins operation. It may be notable if there has been in-depth coverage of its startup, but the references do not show that, and the Google search does not show that. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, there are pages for other upcoming airlines (like Bonza (airline), Connect Airlines, Norse Atlantic Airways, and Northern Pacific Airways). While I think that Connect Airlines should probably be proposed for deletion (or vastly expanded). If we were to delete Akasa Air, we should also consider deleting the airlines mentioned until they start operating. I don't want to present this as a keep argument though because it violates WP:WAX pretty brazenly. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 21:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could the nominator please explain their assertion that nearly every source in the article is merely a republished press release? The CNBCTV18 source, for instance, has both an author and an editor credited, which suggests to me that it's actual news reporting. Mlb96 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The airline is for sure in the start-up phase right now but it is definitely a legit business venture headed by one of the top Indian investors and businessman Rakesh Jhunjhunwala. The sources used in the article are all reliable sources which all show that the airline is indeed real and will be up in the skies within a few months. In the end, I would vote to keep the article. The airline will be starting soon and the sources all show that it is nothing fake. Yellow alligator (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is the case of WP:TOOSOON. Trakinwiki (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While many references are press releases, there are some real sources. Buying dozens of new Boeings worth over $9 billion places it past the WP:CRYSTALBALL guideline. Ifnord (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Akasa Air has ordered 72 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft at the Dubai Airshow 2021. Is this not enough evidence to show that the airline is definitely legit? They now have even ordered a major airftact deal and they have backed by major investors as well as businessmen. I don't see any reason why the page needs to get deleted. Yellow alligator (talk)

I have changed your Keep to a Comment - please do not do a bolded !vote twice. Rusalkii (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I found sources from reliable national newspapers and medias such as Business Insider, Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, News 18, Times Now etc. VincentGod11 (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sam Prince (humanitarian). Consensus below exists not to retain the article, and this proposed redirect is a good ATD. Daniel (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One Disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article subject fails WP:NGO by lacking WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage in multiple WP:ORGIND-compliant reliable secondary sources. Sources currently in the article do not provide this, nor do sources I have been able to encounter online. A full source analysis table of the sources in the article will be listed below as a separate comment to further demonstrate this. The article has previously been deleted per WP:G11 and the current version of the article contains paid contributions. Given the article subject fails to be notable, though its founder appears to be notable and has a Wikipedia page, I propose that this article be redirected to Sam Prince (humanitarian). — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:

(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.)
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward NORG?
Sydney Morning Herald	This newspaper is independent of One Disease.	This is a WP:NEWSORG.	~ The article provides significant coverage of the founder of One Disease, but it does provide substantial coverage of the NGO up for deletion.	~ Partial
Forbes (contributor)	? See WP:FORBESCON.	See WP:FORBESCON.	~ The focus of the article appears to be on a newer philanthropic venture rather than One Disease.	✘ No
News Corp Australia	News.com.au is independent of One Disease	News.com.au is a WP:NEWSORG.	The subject of the news report is the founder of One Disease, but the NGO only gets half a sentence of coverage.	✘ No
ACNC Charity Register	This is a government register.	This is a government register.	This is a highly primary source and cannot give WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
University of Notre Dame Australia Press Release	This is a press release.	This is a press release.	~ There is some discussion of One Disease, but it's mostly quotes from the founder.	✘ No
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases	No authors have a conflict-of-interest	This is a peer-reviewed medical journal that would likely be WP:MEDRS-compliant.	~ There is a sub-paragraph mention of the "One Disease program in NT" that describes some items that appear to be related to this charity. It does not appear to gover the full charity in-depth, and the relative lack of space appears to not qualify it for WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage.	~ Partial
ABC News (Australia)	~ Much of the content is quotes from the founder, which runs afould of WP:ORGIND. The publisher, ABC News, is a well-established WP:NEWSORG.	ABC News is WP:GREL on RSP.	~ The article states that the organization received a donation and describes its work in NT. Fewer than one-hundred words in the ABC's voice appear to provide coverage of the NGO itself.	~ Partial
Sutherland Sharks Press Release	This is a press release.	This is a press release.	This press release covers the orgainzation's activities.	✘ No
DevEx	? It is not clear that the content on the profile page of this company is independently created, as WP:ORGIND would require.	? Editorial oversight of content is unclear.	This is akin to Bloomberg Profiles (see WP:RSP)	✘ No
Medical Journal of Australia	Multiple authors of the paper note that they are affiliated with One Disease.	It's published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.	The journal article covers a program that was jointly administered by One Disease, Miwatj Health Aboriginal Corporation, and he NT Government Department of Health. The program itself receives significant coverage, but One Disease itself does not.	✘ No
PowerPoint presentation	This bears the logomark of One Disease and it appears to be the case that One Disease was responsible for the creation of the content based upon the cover slide.	This is a self-published source on the company.	This does indeed cover One Disease.	✘ No
ACT Government	? The Australia Capital Territory's government is independent of One Disease. It is not clear who was responsible for the creation of the content, so it is unknown whether this complies with WP:ORGIND.	? It is not clear the extent to which the content receives editorial oversight.	One Disease gets mentioned in one sentence, Sam established One Disease in 2010, a non-profit organisation to systematically eliminate one disease at a time.	✘ No
Table created using {{source assess table}}

• Weak keep I'm trying not to maintain a super-hawkish stance re notability of humanitarian nonprofits, so looking to find the reasons for keeping here. I think if the currently unsourced paragraph on making scabies a notifiable disease could be well cited, that would make for a reasonable claim to substantial impact on the field. Also found this^[1], which while a clearly sympathetic interview, is at least partly analytical and from a solid publication. - Having said that, merging further material to the section at Sam Prince (humanitarian) wouldn't be the end of the world either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't access the source immediately (I will try to figure out a way to do so). But, in any case, doesn't WP:NORG require multiple independent RS that have independent content? If it's an interview with the founder, this typically would fail that requirement. And, if the scope of the NGO's activities is less than national or international in scale (i.e. it basically only works in the Northern Territories), wouldn't that still be a failure to meet either necessary condition of WP:NGO? — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteKeep The subject is referenced in multiple reliable national news sources with editorial overview. It is referenced by multiple Government agencies. It is referenced in peer reviewed journals. See here for example. While some of these are weak references, some seem to be quite strong. Aoziwe (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Which ones, in particular, seem to be quite strong? I've provided a source-by-source analysis above; I'd appreciate if you could list the sources you believe demonstrate this meeting WP:NORG's significant coverage criteria. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhawk10. Changing my !vote to delete. Actually I now agree with you. The "Crusted Scabies Elimination Program" (CSEP) is (clearly) notable. It is the subject of my "strong" references. All of the good, independent material is about the CSEP, run by One Disease, not about One Disease itself, and N is not inherited. Aoziwe (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a venue for paid promotion. We need to stop rewarding those who try to use it as such. Blow it away. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage includes a paragraph in this study, ABC news article on a "mysterious donation" the organization received, Philanthropy Australia, Global Citizen, Big Ideas Forum. They seem to be cited regularly in the scabies literature. Article doesn't seem so promotional to me that we need WP:TNT here. Rusalkii (talk) 04:34, 3 December 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 deleted as G7. Geschichte (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monira Qais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable author, academic. I googled in Bangla and English but didn't find any significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail (fails WP:SIGCOV). The person didn't won any major award or anything similar. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• COI. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No SIGCOV found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment The article has been moved by the creator back to draft space, see Draft:Monira Qais. Isabelle ^🔔 23:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back and posted a note to the editor. That's the simplest thing to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept, Draftify as requested (in practice) by the creating editor. No-one else has added substantial content (others have removed "eminent", tweaked capitalisation etc, added categories). Allow the creating editor to work on the article further, outside mainspace. I can't evaluate the existing sources to see whether or not they support notability. PamD 12:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: creating editor has apparent COI (subject appears to be their mother) and has repeatedly had the article declined in draft (see previous version of talk page). PamD 12:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nableezy - 22:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC) 22:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Western Wall Tunnel riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Entirely unsourced article, with the only reference noted being the Hebrew Wikipedia. I have no idea if any of this is real or not, but as it stands if one removes all material lacking an inline citation per WP:V there is quite literally nothing left. Nableezy 20:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 20:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 20:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Did you check for additional sources per WP:BEFORE? It looked for 30 seconds and I found 1996 articles in the New York Times[2], LA Times[3], and Mideast Quarterly[4]. Plus an analysis from 2000 in the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, [5] and 2014 retrospective in the Jerusalem Post[6].

Seems unquestionably notable per WP:DIVERSE and WP:LASTING. It needs proper sourcing, but that's no reason to delete it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if one were to remove every sentence lacking an inline citation what is left is an empty article. Yes, not having a single source is a reason to delete it. Its been five years since this was created. Not a single source has been cited in that time. nableezy - 20:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article seems to have degraded severely in time, with an IP editor replacing the sourced version with an entirely unsourced account. Reverting and withdrawing. nableezy - 22:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Familia Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Six years after the article was deleted I can’t still see this independent musical organization passing our notability criteria. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the references is anything remotely like substantial coverage of the subject in an independent source, nor have I seen anything anywhere else which suggests that this company comes near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JBW (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (The article refers to the label in the present tense, but I haven't been able to find any mention of any record released more recently than 2005, so I wonder whether it is still in existence, as the article implies. Obviously that isn't in itself a reason for deletion, but it does raise doubts about the reliability of the article.) JBW (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. I searched on duckduckgo but unable to find reliable coverage. Mtpos (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with nominator. Not enough articles about them can be found. Jaxarnolds (talk) 06:21, 1 December 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 The Rocky Horror Picture Show (soundtrack). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Tint My World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I scoured the web for sources, and this article is unsalvageably unreferenced. The only coverage that I found was just passing mentions of it in articles about RHPS in general. Because there were no sources covering this song alone, it fails WP:NSONGS. I don’t think we should delete the page, however; I propose we just redirect it to The Rocky Horror Picture Show (soundtrack). Helen(💬📖) 18:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Helen(💬📖) 18:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Rocky Horror Picture Show (soundtrack). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:11, 4 December 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. Only policy-oriented arguments made align with deletion. Daniel (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Princepratap1234 (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete They have one major role in Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin. If someone can find one more major role in a notable project, I will change my vote. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• She is the lead actress of the Show Ghum hain kisikey pyaar mein. A very talented actress gaining popularity with each passing day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.238.98.59 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: She is currently playing lead role in Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin. She also played an important role in a TV Show Zindagi Abhi Baaki Hai Mere Ghost and also played lead role in a movie Adrishya. Kindly requesting to please stop the deletion process as she qualifies WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierce lady (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions last at least 7 days, Fierce lady. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The movie Adrishya is not notable. Eevee01^(talk) 13:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: qualifies WP:NACTOR; she is currently playing lead role in Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Mein and she had significant role (she didn't play the lead role but she was main cast) in Doli Armaano Ki and Zindagi Abhi Baaki Hai Mere Ghost. There is no clear definition of 'significant' in WP:NACTOR, in this case she did have a lead role in a notable TV serial, so we should give some weightage to other notable serials she acted in as well. If she didn't have a lead role in a notable TV show and she wasn't a main cast then I would have voted delete. Eevee01^(talk) 07:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: don't meet WP:NACTOR, I voted keep earlier because I saw that she was main cast in other show. I didn't know it was edited days before I voted to keep it [7]. I should have been more careful. Also I tried to find non-trivial mention of her before Ghum Hai Kisi Ke Pyaar Mai (2020) but I couldn't find anything. Eevee01^(talk) 06:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Actress Ayesha Singh qualifies WP:NACTOR criterias ; she is the main lead of Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin playing the role of Sai Joshi . Apart from this show , she has been part of Zindagi Abhi Baaki Hai Mere Ghost and Doli Armano Ki , where she played a major role of Amy D'Costa and Ratti Sinha respectively . Even the film Adrishya is notable , as it belongs to the entertainment field itself. She was the Female Lead in that movie. So , as it satisfies all the criterias given in WP:NACTOR , this page Ayesha Singh does not deserve to be deleted. I vote to KEEP this page. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Tarun K Chowdary (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)]] comment added by Tarun K Chowdary (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tarun K Chowdary The wikilink you provided above (Adrishya) is of a TV serial. There is no Wikipedia article for the movie Adrishya. According to WP:NACTOR the movie should be notable which means it should qualify WP:NFILMS. I don't think Adrishya (2017) meets that criteria. Eevee01^(talk) 07:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Are there any reviews for shows other than Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin that have more than a passing mention of Singh? That's helpful for determining significance of roles. Ravensfire (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note to closing admin, the other TV serials have been edited by participants here to make this look like she has a main role in those. May please proceed with caution. Also, I sense sockpuppetry and COI here. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into this case but it's happened before editors added actors or wannabe film stars to cast lists of movies and TV series during a deletion discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 5 December 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 23:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Obsession with TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG - I couldn't find any independent sources about the web series.

The only reliable source I could find was a single newspaper article from 2006 about the Boston performance of the cabaret show (that, according to the article, preceded the web series). Whisperjanes (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bismarck, North Dakota. Merge at user discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck Police Department (North Dakota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Run of the mill police department. No sources on this article establish notability, and I am not seeing any sources (outside of generic coverage of crimes) on a web search either. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - I also struggled to find anything that helps this PD stand out enough to qualify for WP:ORG or WP:GNG to merit its own article. As an WP:ATD, I would like to suggest it gets merged into Bismarck,_North_Dakota#Infrastructure and redirected. Missvain (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge to Bismarck,_North_Dakota - I was going to suggest "Government" section but "Infrastructure" also works. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:58, 3 December 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 23:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Fantl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage. Only one major role. SL93 (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO. She only gets passing mentions in coverage I found. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 1 December 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 SchoolNet as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ingenia Communications Corporation (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 business. Current sourcing falls short. 1 is a passing mention (that does not verify the claim made). 5 doesn't mention them. The others are solely from local media. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to SchoolNet. Notability of this former company is largely inherited from this product. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I cleaned up the references and added (an insignificant) one. Seems notable enough, there's some detailed in-depth stuff. Nfitz (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is not enough coverage. Jaxarnolds (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article about a company, mentioning a project on which they worked, awards to an individual associated with the company, and the sequence of subsequent takeovers, whose final destination under Bell Canada is too remote to serve as a redirect. No convincing evidence that the company attained notability during its lifespan. The suggested redirect to SchoolNet may be an option, though the company has only a passing mention there. AllyD (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to SchoolNet per Turtle earlier. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:49, 4 December 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 withdrawn. Author of the article provided evidence of WP:SIGCOV/WP:THREE. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 02:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between Interlingue and Interlingua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Though an interesting topic, I do not see that the comparison between Interlingue and Interlingua is covered per se in the sources cited by the article. As such, this article seems to be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and should be deleted per WP:DELREASON #14. I am open to withdrawing this nomination if additional and relevant sources are provided. JBchrch talk 17:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the article was begun by me after the Good Article review for the page on Interlingue, which the reviewer believed was almost too much information in a single package: "I think Interlingue could really benefit from this treatment. There is already plenty in the article to unpack into separate History of Interlingue and Grammar of Interlingue articles to go with our other auxlang coverage. And I see places that would suggest Comparison of Esperanto and Interlingue and especially Comparison of Interlingua and Interlingue, given how easily they get confused." Out of those, the comparison between it and Interlingua and the History of Interlingue (not started yet) are the easiest for me. I can put some more work into it over the next few days as I pull the relevant parts out of Interlingue to make it more concise. Mithridates (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit: and I will be using more sources directly comparing the two. This one from 1957, for example (second-last page) Mithridates (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mithridates: Thanks for your comment. Here's a proposition: can you provide WP:THREE sources comparing Interlingue and Interlingua? I don't need to see how you will integrate them in the article and will AGF if they are offline sources. If you can just give me three refs comparing both languages, I will withdraw the nomination. JBchrch talk 02:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! This is quite a coincidence, as I had just added three sources directly comparing the two and came back to add a comment. All of them are offline (two published in the 1950s, one from the Journal of Universal Language in 2011). They are references #10 (Manifesto de Interlingua, 1959), 17 (The Case of Correlatives: A Comparison between Natural and Planned Languages, 2011), and 18 (Li defectes inacceptabil de Interlingua Gode, 1957). Mithridates (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! That's all I needed. Will now withdraw the nomination. Thanks again. JBchrch talk 02:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smallcase (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 general notability standards. The references are recycled PR material discussing virtually nothing more than the initial funding. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom reason is QuiteUnusal. GNG is not applicable. It is not a press releases or funding related. Check these independent sources in Economic Times [8], The Fortune [9], Business Today [10]. All defining what it is and how it differs from existing investment products. They also discuss disadvantages. No press release or their recycles would have those.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All trivial, none establish notability. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I see nominator's point of view when they say it is recycled because a lot of sources are explaining what Smallcase is. But, there is plenty of independent commentary and analysis that helps it cross WP:CORPDEPTH. Folks are going to hate me for writing a long comment again but the intent is to just provide examples to support the opinions. See the CNBC article [11]. It says One issue, however, is do the smallcase managers have the research bandwidth and prowess of a traditional money management set-up? Second, you will have to pay higher taxes. Because every time you sell a stock, you pay short-term capital gains tax, unlike in a mutual fund set up (you pay when you redeem your units). So, the overall tax burden in this structure would be much higher. Third, there is concentration risks of a particular strategy or theme or sector. And lastly, it is still a relatively new way of going about investing and it has only seen a bull market. Its true test will be when the cycle turns and things get ugly. This Hindu Business Line article analyses this in parallel to mutual funds [12], saying But do note that choosing a smallcase to fit your risk profile or return requirements is left to you and so is the timing of your entry or exit, which will decide your returns. In mutual funds, you can choose the right fund based on a track record, category and benchmark comparisons. When choosing smallcases, you may only have back-tested returns and risk indicators to go by. Research and understanding of companies and markets are a prerequisite for investing in smallcases. The Should You Consider section of this Economic Times one is also nice [13]. In fact, the article concludes by saying For investors who are less involved, mutual funds should remain the preferred route to equities. These coverages are not funded related, have independent commentary and are in depth. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that boils down to whether you believe that is coverage of the company, or actually coverage of an existing thing - the "smallcase" approach to investing. To me it looks like the equivalent of finding a minor unnotable start up social media platform and using it to anchor an article about the benefits of using social media rather than the company itself. Just my view. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very solid point. What I understand is that this approach is unique to this company. At least in India I think. Hence, talking about the approach (which becomes a unique and sole product of this company in a manner of speaking) is talking about the company. But yes, for example, if it was another ecommerce selling books and coverage was about how selling books online is great or bad, it won't have any merit at all. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means first of all, articles that discuss the *company* - not their products or their executives and nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ HighKing, I wanted to check with you on what you think about WP:PRODUCTREV in WP:NCORP. I wanted to ask it before and then it slipped. This might be a good venue to discuss it. Also, WP:CORPDEPTH does mention product. It is saying Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nomadicghumakkad, the first sentence in NCORP - 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. PRODUCTREV is *not* implying that an article on the product may be used to establish the notability of the company or vice versa. Also, I note that when the article was AfDed, the topic of the article was the company but Behind the moors changed the topic to be the platform after many !votes had already been made. It should be noted that the term "smallcase" also appears to have been adopted as an industry term to describe a "professionally managed basket of stock/EFTs" with this website listing a number of managers/advisors who provide "smallcase" investment advice and therefore one must look at each reference to ensure it is actually discussing the topic company or their platform. Most of the references explain the concept of a "smallcase" portfolio and point to brokerages and agencies with smallcase offerings, most provide a cookie cutter description of the company, but none meet CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND. Regardless of whether the topic is the platform or the company, NCORP still requires topics to meet all of the criteria (see WP:SIRS). An analysis of the references shows the following:

• This from moneycontrol is not about the topic company nor their platform but instead discusses smallcases as professionally managed baskets of stocks/Efts similar to other articles such as this one.
• Hindu Business Online reference is about the company but fails ORGIND as it relies entirely on information provided by the company and provides no "Independent Content" such as the journalist's analysis/opinion/etc other than the lede which says it is "giving mutual funds a run for its money" but that isn't even close to the in-depth content required.
• The entrepreneur reference is one of several such articles with the same date such as tjos from hrnxt.com and this from entrackt and relies entirely on an anouncement of funding by the company with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
• This Hindu Businessline reference is an article to primarily explain the generic idea of a "smallcase" and while it makes a passing reference to the topic company and provides a short description of what they do and their partners, the article does not provide in-depth information nor provide "Independent Content" on the topic company. Reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
• Forbes India article is a puff piece on the company and relies entirely on information provided by the company and the executives. It is marketing. There is no "Independent Content" and it fails WP:ORGIND
• BusinessToday reference is a decent article which takes information from a variety of difference sources and people (including the topic company and their executives) to provide an explanation and description of smallcase products and how to get started. But I cannot see any in-depth information on the company which clearly contains "Independent Content".
• This LiveMint reference is similarly decent and I could describe it the same way as the BusinessToday reference above - but equally it fails NCORP for the same reasons as above.
• This second LiveMint reference relies entirely on information provided by the company and their CEO and does not contain any in-depth "Independent Content".
• Economic Times reference is entirely based on a press release made by the company, fails ORGIND.
• TechCrunch article is similarly based entirely on a funding announcement by the company, fails ORGIND.
• This next Economic Times reference, like the Hindu Business reference, the Business Today reference and the first LiveMint reference, is primarily a primer on explaining what "smallcase"'s are, how they work and lists the ones that have performed well. But it is conspicuously *not* an in-depth article on the actual topic company nor their platform - fails CORPDEPTH
• APN News reference is a Press release for an announcement by IIFL Securities, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND

I think there may be a case for an article on "managed stock baskets" or similar in which case there would be room to mention the topic company, but right now an article for this company is WP:TOOSOON as the "concept" is still being promoted and the only articles are either promotional or based on announcements (run-of-the-mill) or are trying to explain the more generic idea of a smallcase basket and how readers can get started. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment* The page is not having much clear content, and it can be taken in the right direction, that was my point. Nom questioned on GNG, so my logic is correct. It's better to extend it as a product, and it is notable too. Behind the moors (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It can't be taken anywhere if it fails the criteria for establishing notability. Changing the article's topic from the company to the platform hasn't achieved that either. See above.. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean, yes funding and all related are not helpful but I might not agree for notability because the analysis is also there. It's good to have multiple opinions, I shared mine but I liked your thinking pattern also. Behind the moors (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's funny but smallcase is a product of a smallcase company. As a product it is passing WP:GNG based on the above sources. The content should be extended as a product, currently its too short and not much detailed. Knowing about such concepts will help readers. Rest, I got this fintech report about smallcase. [14]. It is similar to bitcoin as a product, not a company. Behind the moors (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge it with Zerodha. A seperate article is not required. -Hatchens (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A different investing technique with diverse sources talking about the company passing WP:NCORP. Nom is concerned about WP: GNG which is also passing. Few more sources like [15], [16], [17] are enough to establish notability. Mtpos (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources like this comparing smallcase with Mutual funds. For example, in this source [18] Hence, the expense on an investment of ₹1 lakh in a smallcase is ₹250 as against ₹1,500 in an MF. There is also a table comparison in the source. Above sources and such are helping to pass notability.Juggyevil (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per HighKing. Potentially notable but WP:NOTJUSTYET. You've got a long deletion log and a bunch of promotional versions in the article history. Even the current version can be considered to be promotional: Any investor can create its own model portfolio (smallcases) or invest in professionally managed smallcases. smallcases reduce risk of investment through diversification along with the flexibility to modify the portfolio according to the investor’s preference. If it is kept, the article could use some eyes or pending changes protection to keep a check on any further attempts to promote this product. M4DU7 (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It is a trademarked term with this company, so anywhere media is taking about it they are not taking in general way or concept. You can check on this Indian Govt website for patent and trademark [19]. So when media is talking about smallcase, they are talking about this particular subject. To me sources seems to pass WP:ORG. 1друг (talk) 08:35, 6 December 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in Business (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I found a surprisingly lengthy review from TV Guide and it looks like there are some hits from Newspapers.com. I'm waiting for my subscription to be re-upped so I can't check to see if they're usable for expanding the article and/or establishing notability. If anyone can, these look to be the most promising ones: [20], [21], [22]. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The first and second reference are the same, "Hollywood Buzz by Mike Fleming - the guy who really knows" - and is a news story before the film's release. The second is a two-sentence review. Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per TV Guide and Empire reviews. There is also other self-published (?) reviews such as this, news stories about Bosworth mentioning the movie like this and this, and very short rewievs like this (2 sentences). Geschichte (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Geschichte (TV Guide/Empire) DonaldD23 talk to me 14:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw this nomination per WP:NEXIST and ReaderofthePack's WP:HEY improvements. The Film Creator (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Frère Jacques. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frère Jacques in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Wikipedia:Listcruft and WP:IPC violations wizzito | say hello! 16:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 16:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 16:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 16:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Frère Jacques with a bit of clean up. Honestly no need to bring this to a labour intensive AfD. Could have been handled locally at the talk page or just a bold move. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Frère Jacques per Vladimir's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:02, 4 December 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, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

By now, you know the drill: a rail line with "storage bins" (i.e., grain storage) by the tracks, and nothing else around until they built the Eritage Resort next door in the past few years. In other words, a shipping point for grain, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are so, so, so many false positives here, but this seems to not be anything more than described by nom therefore failing WP:GEOLAND. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yet another GEOLAND fail. –dlthewave ☎ 03:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Apart from the creator, everybody agrees that this is spam for a non-notable subject. It probably also doesn't help that the content reads like the output of a business jargon random text generator. Sandstein 10:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect box theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

"Perfect box theory" is a non-notable subject that has not received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. It is also the title of a self-published book that the creator of this article cited in another article (WP:SPS, WP:REFSPAM). The article Perfect box theory was created in late July, not long before the "perfect box theory" Twitter account emitted its first tweet, which, along with the accompanying website www.perfectbox.org, suggests that this article is part of a promotional campaign (WP:PROMO) by the creator(s) of "perfect box theory". Shortly prior to creating this article, the creator of this article created at least two draft articles (here and here) that were rejected at WP:AFC and subsequently speedily deleted per WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Biogeographist (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising/promotion for a non-notable subject. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete I have contributed for this page based on my book reading. The book itself published in July, 2021. Hence, tagging this article with author's promotion campaign is inappropriate. My previous articles are rejected due to selection of wrong topic and writing in essay format. This mistake does not make writing about any topic as promotion. It seems that user Biogeographist (talk) is biased against this article/topic. More notability from independent source is possible in future upon citation in any work, article. However, relevant cross explanative citations are already added and also be added in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshmirat (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rakeshmirat: And the evidence that I am "biased against this article/topic", instead of doing what any active and conscientious Wikipedia editor would do, is nonexistent. Whereas the fact that you created an article about the subject of a self-published book at exactly the same time the book was published is pretty much a "smoking gun" that this article is promotional. Biogeographist (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by future citations that might exist, but by those that already do. Moreover, "cross explanative citations" that merely give background material and don't discuss the subject of the article itself don't count, either. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ I am agree with XOR'easter about notability concern. But, contention of user Biogeographist is quite suspicious. As per general promotion guidelines of Wikiepedia, article should not redirect to outside links as well as it should not contain any information which is showcasing the promotion of any particular person, event etc. The information which added in this article neither have any promotional content nor its redirecting to any third party links. Judging anything simply based on limited area is not the right way to increase the authenticity of any wikipedia article. Instead, I urge Biogeographist to analysis the situation on the basis of subject matter.Rakeshmirat (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I analyzed the subject matter and came to the conclusion that it is non-notable, which is sufficient as a deletion rationale, and which you have conceded is correct. Even if my conclusion about the promotional nature of the article is incorrect (but I see no reason to doubt it, given all the facts I mentioned), still non-notability is sufficient reason to delete. By the way, I will note that I did not rush to nominate the article for deletion. Earlier this month, my first step was to graciously spend time editing the article to conform with Wikipedia style and to add cleanup tags, and then I moved the article to draft space so that you could fix the tagged issues, such as notability, if possible. You moved the article back to article space without sufficiently fixing the article (of course, non-notability can't be fixed in Wikipedia, which would explain your failure to remedy the issue), so deletion is the next step. I tried to help you. Biogeographist (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeographist Point Noted. Moved to Draft for updation and validation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshmirat (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move. Do not move it again. This discussion should complete and an early draftification to avoid scrutiny is not acceptable. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of coverage in secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cryptocurrencies by market capitalization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An intrinsically unmaintainable list. The list is explicitly constructed as a digest of the site CoinMarketCap - an unreliable source, run by a cryptocurrency exchange, and widely regarded as questionable even inside crypto. The usual alternative is Coingecko, but that isn't much better, and still isn't an RS. But even restricted to RSes, this list would be all but unmaintainable per the sourcing requirements of WP:LISTVERIFY - RSes rarely note market cap of cryptos (because it's a publicity number, not a useful number in trading), when they do it's almost never timely, and as a footnote on this article explicitly notes: "Cryptocurrency prices fluctuate rapidly, so this data may be significantly out of date." If you want a non-RS list of cryptos in order of a promotional number, then going to the front page of CoinMarketCap is a strictly superior and more timely alternative. David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator. (I happened to notice this get PROD'ed and de-PROD'ed, and was thinking of nominating it myself for basically the same reasons.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can change the source. Yahoo has also a list of cryptocurrencies by market cap. The topic is clearly important. Crypto is volatile, but so are stocks. There is also a list of companies by market cap. I can update this list monthly. This list is not unmaintainable.--Afus199620 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo page is literally a reprint of the CoinMarketCap data, it says so right there on the Yahoo page. Yahoo News is notorious for reprinting any old rubbish, and crypto reprints are no more an RS than the original source - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Market cap constantly changes. Reliable sources rarely mention it. This is going to be hopelessly out of date or based on unreliable sources with arbitrary updating policy. Retimuko (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with those above me. At least the List of public corporations by market capitalization breaks the list down in a manner that's manageable; the way this page is currently set up, I cannot see any encyclopedic value. Pegnawl (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's good article to have. Even if those source are unreliable, these numbers are public data and can be verified from other sources. So perhaps the article needs just better sourcing. Jaxarnolds (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added alternate sources for the top 7. However, no point to do it, if its gonna get deleted, so I will wait. But as you can see alternate sources can easily be found. Jaxarnolds (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can produce this better sourcing - better than hastily-written Motley Fool blog posts - then you're not refuting that it's presently unsourceable to the requirements of WP:LISTVERIFY, and this "keep" isn't policy/guideline-based - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is not the type of article where you need in-depth articles for support. All we need is some articles to verify the numbers and there are plenty out there. We can Even use Yahoo finance charts, such as [23]. Would you be OK, if I added Yahoo Finance chart links to each line? Jaxarnolds (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a verifiable or maintainable list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, inherently not verifiable, with pretty much all the data reliant on an unreliable source. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:51, 4 December 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 23:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mira (2023 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, the film has not even been confirmed its release date, just saying 2023.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 12:27, 27 November 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 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Hello, Yes, I understand that the film is still in production, and will be released only later in 2023. However, this film is made by the company Mars Media which has a long track record of successful films. Er nesto (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON DonaldD23 talk to me 14:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft Delete It could be relevant/gain more information in the future since it has notable director, producers/production company, actors, etc. and the filming process has already begun but it should have been a draft instead of being moved to mainspace immediately.Jaguarnik (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG and WP:NFF. Per NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, ... films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." There is nothing here to show any notability of production. And if they think it will take over a year from now for post-production work... not notable enough in their minds to get it done sooner. Doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Delete. Platonk (talk) 22:49, 3 December 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 23:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Ukrainian coup d'état plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This is a one-paragraph stub about an announcement by the Ukrainian president according to which he has uncovered a coup plot. There has not yet been an actual coup or coup attempt, and as far as I can tell the existence of the alleged plot has not yet been verified by independent reliable sources. The substance of this article is basically a press release of the Ukraininan government, and we are not a platform for republishing press releases. Sandstein 12:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Article can be moved or in worst case scenario merged, as alternatives to deletion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not the issue. Even an article about a notable topic is deleted if it fails the policy WP:NOT, as in this case. Sandstein 12:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at this point, fully agree with the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there is independent or outside confirmation of a plot, or something else like notable arrests. Right now this is just a statement by the president. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support relist: Considering news of this only broke in the past day or two, and how significant an event this potentially is, I would support that at the end of the initial 7-day nomination, an additional 7-day relist is given, to see if additional sources other than "Zelensky says so" have been written. Curbon7 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That said, 2016 Montenegrin coup allegations seems to cover a similar "President says so, but everyone else disagrees" event. Curbon7 (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an ongoing story which has continued to be in the news:[24], [25], [26]. Even if the coup does not occur, the numerous news stories point to its notability and need for a Wikipedia article to clarify the facts of the alleged coup. Thriley (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  These articles are nothing new, they just continue to report the Ukrainian president's announcement. We are not a news aggregator. Sandstein 19:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  This could be a single sentence in Zelenskyy’s biography. Since Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, I don’t believe that waiting for it to become something notable is warranted. If it does, then start an article about what it is at that time. —Michael Z. 21:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 7 days later, nothing to date which cannot be covered under the article on Zelenskyy or Russia–Ukraine relations; nothing to date which satisfies WP:EVENTCRIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maccabi Ma’alot Fencing Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Draftified once by Liz, moved twice to main space by the creating editor, this article does not demonstrate that the club itself passes WP:NCORP. Individual members have won championships, certainly, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. I have performed a WP:BEFORE and found nothing useful about the club itself. I would have draftified this myself, but the prior draftification means I would have been move warring Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No references, and so does not pass any notability standard. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced, fails WP:ORG and a WP:BEFORE shows nout much to help. KylieTastic (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricketers who have played 50 T20Is (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of meeting our notability requirements. WP:NLIST suggests that for standalone lists, a topic should have "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Choosing 50 T20Is seems arbitrary, and this list will grow very long. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no sources which suggest 50 is notable and with every international match between any country now classed at T20I we'll end up with a tonne of entries very soon. I note this list also excludes any female cricketers at present, which is unacceptable - per this source we'd be at least doubling the length of the list here. I note, as well, that there are a number of female cricketers who have made more than 40 appearances for Thailand in careers which began in 2018 - including Suleeporn Laomi who is 23. How many do we think she might get to if she continues playing until she's the same age as Nattaya Boochatham (34)? 50 will be trifling by that stage. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly falls below our requirements for standalone lists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, BST and Wjemather's comments. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS/WP:NOTMIRROR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral kept it as per list of ODIs and Tests for a milestone.. Ankur— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurc.17 (talk • contribs)

• The thresholds for both of those are much higher, and therefore harder to obtain. It's 100 for Tests and 200 for ODIs, which aren't numbers that can be achieved in 2-4 years like 50 T20Is can. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Muhalla Sikanderpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources showing notability, a search also turned up nothing about this place beyond wiki mirrors AryKun (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG. This is an unsourced article about a neighborhood in the town of Sikanderpur, Uttar Pradesh. Nothing to signify the importance of this locality. Venkat TL (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. Not having WP:SNG Coverage in WP:RS.Juggyevil (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juggyevil: Did you actually check the article, because it's about a locality, NACTOR and ANYBIO aren't even applicable here. AryKun (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Oh, Funny. Yes, I checked. 2 pages' tab were open at a time and by mistake, I wrote the answer of that one here. Let me check, what I wrote on the other one then. But this page fails WP:NGEOJuggyevil (talk) 14:28, 2 December 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 05:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article has no inline citations, and all of the links are for the catalogue sections, which shouldn't be in the article. Once you delete the problem sections, the article is completely unsourced. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In 2018, the company won Red Dot award and in 2020 it won a German Design Award, both awards are big things in the interior design world. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional catalogue. desmay (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not enough citations are provided and Google search brings up some passing mentions only. Even if someone can present more citations, a lot of content needs reduction. This looks like a detailed resume. We need a summary of it. Jaxarnolds (talk) 19:49, 1 December 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 05:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Spam, WP:NACTOR failure JohnnyHunt (talk) 13:32, 4 November 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 November 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- Already featured in multiple hit movies and TV shows. I don't see the point of nominating this article for deletion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 18:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep - The actor has done significant roles in multiple notable films, tv shows and short films.Billyatthewheels (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment only keep votes are socks. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails on both N WP:GNG and NWP:ARTIST Louie (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, [[WP:ARTIST}], WP:ACTOR etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I checked. All the sources just namecheck him. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 72.239.12.56 (talk) 01:55, 3 December 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 06:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Bible with Les Feldick (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 television series. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. If it's really been through 984 episodes, as claimed, then it has some notability. Nonetheless, I have just made a comparison with La Source de vie, a religious (Jewish) programme that has been running weekly on French television for about 60 years (sometimes said to be the longest continuously running television series worldwide), more than 3000 episodes. It has no Wikipedia article -- not only not in English (not too surprising) but also not in French (definitely surprising). It is, however, a far more serious and intellectual programme than Through the Bible with Les Feldick appears to be, and directed to a far smaller audience. Athel cb (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Number of episodes isn't a notability criterion. SL93 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Its only mention in the news is a passing mention in an article about religious programming being on in a military building. While this was the program in question, it was not itself the point of contention in the article and the event was not itself particularly notable. JBLM investigating report of Christian proselytizing on base. Other than this, there are some mentions of him on a blog that notes he's somewhat well known among people who watch the bible on TV according to Phil Cooke. It just doesn't seem to me to cross the threshold of notability. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 16:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]