Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< August 07	August 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. czar 05:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwater Beach, Delaware[edit]

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

The only reference to this I found that characterized it was a passing mention in a geological report describing it as a "resort community". The name doesn't appear on maps until the line of cottages by the water appears with it, and sometime by the early 2010s almost all the cottages disappear, and the original driveway is replaced by the sprawling Seagrass Plantation development. I'm not seeing how this is notable, especially with the lack of information. Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google maps. I believe it is the row of cottages to the east of West Beach in maps. Regardless, fails WP:GEOLAND. It seems to be/have been a very small beachfront neighborhood. Curbon7 (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose to Blackwater, Delaware, which is a notable Delaware community just south of this locality with no existing Wikipedia article. Blackwater's history goes back more than 100 years, there are 75 mentions on NewspaperArchive, and there are population figures going back at least as far as 1890. Much more than a stub can be written about Blackwater. The GNIS entry for Blackwater Beach appears to be incorrect, as the coordinates lead me to a body of water in Maryland. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need this article to write a different one with a different name. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Delaware. It can be listed as an unincorporated place in the Municipalities section. Heartmusic678 (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartmusic678:, about merging, this locale is not a Municipality, which the article defines as "A municipality is usually a single administrative division having corporate status and powers of self-government or jurisdiction as granted by national and regional laws to which it is subordinate." Blackwater Beach has no corporate status or powers of self-government, which in the past for AfDs has meant that the locale has no legal recognition and thus does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. Geographic AfDs that are deleted are not often merged to a list in the state article, see recent AfDs like: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Smothers,_Virginia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Packing House Corner, Delaware, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Acres, Delaware and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piney Grove Manor, Delaware. Would you consider changing your vote? Cxbrx (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable locale. Newspapers.com refers to it as a swim area. GBooks refers to it as a resort community. JStor has an article about a snail at that location. This AfD is about Blackwater Beach, not about Blackwater, Delaware, please feel free to start an article for Blackwater, Delaware, though I'm not so sure it will pass WP:GEOLAND. Blackwater Beach has no legal recognition and thus does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND and has very little coverage, none of it notable, so #2 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. Cxbrx (talk) 12:22, 14 August 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 12:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visionx[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I trimmed the primary company sources and the unsourced claims. A search finds nothing at all in terms of coverage. --- Possibly ☎ 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - and thank you for your attention to this page. The page was previously proposed for deletion and deleted before I could get a follow-up from the person who proposed it. It was restored with the condition that it would be evaluated and then resubmitted. I am happy to present the 3rd party, re-written content, which is far less sales-oriented and will pose the proper citations. Please have a look at it here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RE95BWDv9-hm-NqkALBXy6-4hj4ei6iX1XU6T7QVli4/edit) and let me know if there is anything else that should be changed. If this content is good to publish, who should publish it? Should I make these changes? Bcvisi2009 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nytendoz (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Their software is mentioned in several research papers and books, like this one: https://books.google.com/books?id=wt5qQslgpV0C It appears that the software is notable enough, but I can't infer that the company is notable. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe there is sourcing to establish notability, and I will try to do that during this AfD and come back with a firm k/d. The content that Bcvisi2009 proposes should not be added, as that would be a near automatic G11. Star Mississippi 17:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Bcvisi2009 please note that you don't need to post to mutiple editors' pages, discussion happens here or on the article's Talk page. Star Mississippi 17:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you, and I apologize - I'll keep all questions here. I will not post the proposed edits, as suggested. If anyone wants to highlight the objectionable words/phrases in that proposed content, I can make sure our copywriting team removes them when rewriting the content. Or perhaps it would make more sense to write an article about the software itself instead?Bcvisi2009 (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NCORP.-KH-1 (talk)
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. GermanKity (talk) 12:20, 10 August 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 IBM System z9. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IBM MIDAW[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N Boleyn (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to IBM System z9. BD2412 T 21:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: per BD2412. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IBM_System_z9#DB2_and_VSAM_features, where it is mentioned. Basic facts are verifiable in mostly IBM-related sources and it's considered a feature of the z9 system, so it is reasonable to describe it briefly in that article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:11, 9 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nageeb al-Hadi[edit]

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

He doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject is a WP:BLP1E case for briefly being suspected of involvement in 9/11; no further basis for notability exists here. BD2412 T 21:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only known for one event WP:BLP1E. Against wiki guidelines. Peter303x (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not follow the guidelines, fails Notability criteria.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 08:53, 12 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helium Systems[edit]

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

Promotional article about blockchain company - unrelated to the blogging company that previously owned helium.com (which was previously deleted at AFD). Content is substantially from SPAs. VentureBeat source is about fundraising (which is not usable for notability), and TechCrunch is a yellow-rated source at WP:RSP that is specifically not a source of notability. A WP:BEFORE on "Helium Systems" shows press releases, low-level churnalism, crypto blogs and some funding rounds; no independent RS coverage that would supply WP:CORPDEPTH necessary to meet WP:CORP, and no sign of meeting WP:GNG. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would have to be shown with independent RS coverage. David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As noted, sources covering fundraising alone do nothing to support encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 21:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert of a blockchain company. Absolutely fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. GermanKity (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, buzzword spam.--Mvqr (talk) 12:52, 10 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MenuBox[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be a part of the Amiga Forever package, but I m not sure, if it even warrants mention there. Pavlor (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it existed, but it doesn't seem to be noteworthy enough for its own article. It's now historic so no further potential is possible. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 by Materialscientist. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 21:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Herman (writer)[edit]

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

Mildly advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The strongest notability claim here, that one of his books was named as a "bestseller", is referenced solely to the book's promotional profile on the self-published website of its own publishing company rather than any independent verification in a notability-building independent source -- and the article is otherwise referenced almost entirely to sources that still aren't helping to build notability, such as Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person rather than being independently analyzed or discussed in the third, and a glancing namecheck of his existence in a source whose primary subject is somebody else. The strongest piece of sourcing here, the only one that actually passes all three of the "about him" and "from a real WP:GNG-worthy media outlet" and "written in the third person" tests, is a short blurb about him winning a minor business competition that isn't a notable WP:ANYBIO-passing award, and thus isn't enough coverage to singlehandedly clinch him as notable all by itself if it's the only useful source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better referencing than this: people do not get into Wikipedia by talking themselves into Wikipedia as the creator or speaker of their own sourcing, they get into Wikipedia by having their notability independently established through third-party analysis of their significance by people other than themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 8 August 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 as soft delete/G14. The redirects redirect to something else and cannot be G8'd, nor can they be AFD'd and nor were they tagged during the nomination. Geschichte (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varṇamālā[edit]

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

"varṇamālā" is not mentioned at any of the three linked articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if deleted, please also speedy delete the redirects Varṇamālā (disambiguation) and Varnamala. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:47, 10 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Gkionis[edit]

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

Whilst he has played in 5 games in the Belgian 2nd tier, the current version of WP:FPL only includes this league from 2016 onwards, so Gkionis doesn't actually pass WP:NFOOTBALL. This Greek News Online source is good but not enough to pass WP:GNG on its own, as that requires multiple reliable sources addressing him in detail. I have searched "Nicholas Gkionis", "Nick Gkionis" and "Niko Gkionis" and the best that I can find are this blog written by him and this blog post where he is inteviewed.

I'm not convinced that the coverage is enough and I also have my doubts about the quality of the sources. Whilst not necessarily a reason to delete the article, I am also concerned about the highly promotional language used throughout the article, indicating that it was either written by Gkionis or someone closely associated with him. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. GermanKity (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:39, 10 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regal Investments[edit]

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

I have just done a quick LinkedIn search and did not discover this company being there. The sources do not indicate that they are actually specific to this company. Potentially a paid edit I think? I do not think this article meets WP:NOTE. Ueutyi (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this does seem quite suspect, especially with a newly-registered account creating Roble Regal (apparently the CEO) straight away, prior to this article. I am not seeing any assertion of notability and the references are questionable in support of the prose; for instance, in the 'Fintech' section, claims about being a "top performing fund" and what they are notable for are not supported by the ref, which is not reliable anyway. Seems like a poor publicity attempt. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, junk sourcing from unreliable sources and company profiles that do not assert notability. Would fail WP:NCORP. Potential COI/Paid editing, warned user on talk page. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the listed sources are independent of the subject. All of them are the company's profile on various websites, which does not make it notable. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:SIGCOV. When I Googled the company, I found nothing but passing mentions. Not even a single article. Helen(💬📖) 01:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't have sufficient sources, and is rarely notable, I searched it but there was nothing to make it notable, fails WP:GNG. Cheers. Tahaaleem ^Talk 07:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not cite well resources. I am to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. GermanKity (talk) 12:28, 10 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing the Horizon[edit]

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

Non-notable film, the award indicated is not from a major film festival, and there is no other coverage of this film that would meet WP:NFO BOVINEBOY2008 17:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 8 August 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. czar 05:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scratching Shed Publishing[edit]

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

Does it become notable if it has connections to notable people? That seems to be the whole claim. Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Article clearly needs a rewrite but I believe the subject is notable. This article in the Yorkshire post covers the subject in detail. NemesisAT (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That reference is based entirely on an interview with the founder (says it in the lede) and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been changed (and perhaps its quality reduced) by an anonymous editor. It needs a rewrite, but I stand by my comment above that adequate sources are available that establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Notability is not inherited. Promotional and just a business listing. A "still" small publishing company. A google search brings up mainly directory listings. The Yorkshire Post article is mainly an interview. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 9 August 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 14:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Mateo[edit]

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

I've been recently pushing to improve these Spanish stubs where possible and proposing deletion for those where there does not seem to be potential to reach the required level. This doesn't even look to be a borderline notable case (like Julia Olmos, Sandra García, Goretti Donaire etc.) in terms of WP:GNG. There is one passing mention in a squad list in Marca, she has a stats page on Aupa Athletic and a profile page on her club's website. That's pretty much it. Even searching in conjunction with the name of the one club that she played for brought up nothing better than a couple of sentences in a Wordpress blog.

Her career was entirely during the semi-pro era of Spanish women's football so wouldn't be covered by WP:NFOOTBALL. Ultimately, I can't see this passing our high WP:BLP standards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Does not meet GNG or FOOTY requirements, unimproved for 11 years and no likelihood of expansion. Unremarkable squad player of the modern era. Crowsus (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NFOOTBALL and GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 12:03, 9 August 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) TheChronium 14:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Port Charles cast members[edit]

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

Unsourced small list that does not meet WP:LISTN. Size of the list does not warrant a standalone list article. – DarkGlow • 13:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you are suggesting merge, that's a different discussion than delete. Category:Lists of actors by soap opera television series and the many sublists of Category:Lists of actors by series show it is very common to put the casts list in a separate article, just as they do with the character lists. List of Port Charles characters. The article looks better with the cast and characters listed in separate articles, be too long otherwise. Dream Focus 09:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several cast members over the past year and am still improving it. I will try to add more sources as well DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cast list in a maintained separate article keeps the main article at a reasonable size.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kataluna Enriquez[edit]

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

Non-notable pageant contestant. Per WikiProject Beauty Pageants, winning a state title does not confer notability onto an individual. Enriquez has received some outside coverage for being the first transgender woman at Miss USA, but not significantly enough for her own article as coverage falls under WP:BLP1E, much like other "firsts" who have competed at Miss USA in past years. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative~~ keep. She has attracted more then enough press coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, and the media seems to feel that being the first openly transgender woman at Miss USA is notable. ~~But I am concerned this could be a WP:BLP1E.~~ pburka (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that WP:BLP1E exactly pertains here but I forgot to include that when I nominated. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Beccaynr's argument is persuasive. I've struck my BLP1E concern. pburka (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and because WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply. I am in the process of revising the article, including to add more sources, but per WP:BLP1E, reliable sources are covering her for more than one event, including her Miss Silver State USA win in March 2021 (e.g. Las Vegas Review-Journal) and her advocacy that is related but independent of her participation in a variety of pageants (e.g. People magazine, NBC News). In addition, per WP:BLP1E, she is not a low-profile individual, including because of the interviews she has given to notable publications, her publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, her participation in multiple publicly advertised events that garner significant independent, non-local coverage, and she is expected to continue such high-profile activities in the upcoming Miss USA 2021 competition. In addition, based on the volume and scale of the coverage of her Miss Nevada USA 2021 win in June, it also appears per WP:BLP1E that this event is considered significant, and her role is substantial and well-documented. WP:BLP1E requires all criteria (single event coverage, low-profile individual, and insiginificant event or an insubstantial, not well-documented role) to be met before deletion is considered on this basis, and it appears per the sourcing in the article, none of the criteria are met. Beccaynr (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look, I know that I have a COI voting to keep this article, since I'm the once who wrote it. But I would not have written an article about Kataluna if I did not feel she was notable. This is my reasoning to keep-- she does meet the WP:SIGCOV, as she's been covered not just by local news, but national outlets. And yes, I do understand your concern about WP:BLP1E, but with all due respect to Jjj1238, I do not feel as if it is warranted. She's not just known for winning the Miss Nevada USA state pageant; she's also known for being the first trans lady to be a competitor in the national Miss USA pageant. Even more coverage is going to appear of her when she competes again in November. Because of this attention she is getting from reliable sources independent of her, she also meets the WP:GNG for people. Helen(💬📖) 18:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And per WP:HEY, the article has been expanded to include more biographical and education information (e.g. Reno Gazette-Journal, Las Vegas Sun, Good Morning America), her prior competitions (e.g. Las Vegas Sun, Good Morning America, Out, March 23, 2021), her past and future advocacy activities (e.g. Champions of Pride 2021 From the Rugged West, The Advocate, June 15, 2021, before she won Miss Nevada USA, Las Vegas Sun), and her work as a healthcare administrator (e.g. The Advocate, Good Morning America). Beccaynr (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FWIW, I do not believe that being the original author is a COI. pburka (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel that there's enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to say that the subject meets GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does meet with the general notability guidelines. More likely being with the news coverage spread out following her state crowning victory. ApprenticeWiki work 14:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there has been enough coverage to meet GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:07, 15 August 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 12:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.C.Kadloor[edit]

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

non-elected politician fails WP:NPOL. As per available References also fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He was never elected. Fails WP:NPOL --Whiteguru (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Sahaib (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing establishes notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet NPOL and the coverage is not sufficient for GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't appear notable to me, does not follows the guidelines.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:44, 12 August 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 12:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Mankhurd[edit]

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

High schools are often kept (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) but they do need to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, and I couldn't establish that it does. Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom, this high school does not meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG and is not a notable school in Maharashtra. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:44, 8 August 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 12:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Rastovac[edit]

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

The caps for Serbia don't count for WP:NRU and there is little evidence of any coverage elsewhere. Searching "Милан Растовац" only brings about passing mentions on his club's own website such as this and this, which is simply not enough. Sportspeople are not exempt from WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Istok Totić and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predrag Vranes Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails WP:NRU with no professional appearances and no notable international appearances. As nom also states, there isn't enough coverage on the player for a GNG pass either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of COVID-19 safety measures that have died from COVID-19[edit]

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

PROD rationale was Potentially subjective as to who is a critic of safety measures as, although the media may label someone as such, the person themselves may not identify as such. I'm also struggling to see how there are enough people that would fall into this intersection to make it a worthwhile and encyclopaedic topic.

Contested with In the US but there are many individuals that can be added to this page. It can serve as a warning to others in the future for many different reasons.

Firstly, it's not Wikipedia's purpose to serve as a warning to those who refuse to wear a mask or refuse to get vaccinated. Whether it's right or wrong, Wikipedia has a policy to maintain a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) and this cannot be superseded by any other policy or guideline. I stand by what I wrote when I said that there aren't enough people in this intersection to make it worthwhile to cover them as a list. Not enough notable people anyway. Herman Cain on his own is not enough.

Through some digging, I found a few other news stories of people who refused to wear a mask and/or get vaccinated who ended up dying after testing positive for COVID; Leslie Lawrenson, Stephen Karanja, Matthew Keenan and Gary Matthews. With the exception of Karanja, I don't think any of these people would actually pass notability criteria, though. For this to pass WP:LISTN, there would need to be some sort of discussion of these people as a group because at the moment this list is just a synthesis of different news stories. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another highly inappropriate, tasteless idea for a list. The subject should be discussed in prose somewhere in one of the articles about the pandemic. Gildir (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SYNTH, likely fails WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN issues aside, I consider listing this people by this intersection to be fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's policy on WP:Attack pages. Leave disparaging the judgments of deceased people to places like the Darwin Awards, Cracked.com, and r/LeopardsAteMyFace. TompaDompa (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - terribly idea for an article topic. --Soman (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this sort of list page is not useful. List pages are valuable if they do something that a Google search can't do better. List pages that link to a lot of WP articles function as disambiguation pages, and are therefore useful. This is a list of only three people, only one of whom has an article, which makes it pretty pointless. Elemimele (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm very strongly opposed to including non-notable people on the list, but the list could be expanded: John Magufuli for example was very much a notable and a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist. Also, Hans Kristian Gaarder. Vexations (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, and also would argue this is a likely POV fork. --MuZemike 11:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unjustified attack page if I have ever seen it. What next Hyprocritical supporters of Covid-19 safety measures who incurred the disease while flouting their own rules and eating at the French laundry?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert - please don't give any more ideas for ridiculous COVID lists! :) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That one is so beyond the pale that I do not think it will happen, but I fear we could get a lot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only one of these people has an article, and even in his case the approach to including him on the list reeks of partisanship and of poor taste attacking someone for getting sick. There is no reason to have the other 3 people on the list at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree John. This is the sort of thing that a trashy newspaper or website might include but not Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SYNTH Nitesh003 (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hard to define "critics". Fails NPOV, SYNTH, and INDISCRIMINATE. WIKINIGHTS _talk 14:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7/G11 by Materialscientist. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 12:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Enkay[edit]

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

WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY of a musician who doesn’t meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. My searches don’t find independent coverage, just social media, streaming sites and similar. The two references in the article are both to streaming sites and the ‘further reading’ lists his social media pages. It’s simply WP:TOOSOON for an article on this subject. Neiltonks (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - autobiography on a non-notable rapper with no independent coverage. Even the social media links have no indication of notability. The Spotify link shows that he currently has zero monthly listeners. I believe that this fits WP:A7 and there are quite a few promotional sentences in there as well so WP:G11 might apply. If not, then please count this as a normal delete vote. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 8 August 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 08:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William C. March[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO, has some coverage towards WP:GNG, but I'm not convinced it is sufficient. Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of March is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 13 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SparkBuild[edit]

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

Pure spam. I note that IPs have come along to remove cleanup tags from the page, but there is nothing worth cleaning up. BD2412 T 06:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BD2412, this article was repurposed by an IP in this Sept 2020 edit. Such references as it contains (which are dead links) relate to the former IT topic rather than the civil engineering firm now squatting. Were it not for the present AfD, I could see a case for reverting past the IP's actions, but as it stands, this leaves the question of whether this AfD should be conducted relative to the former, the latter, or both uses? AllyD (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @AllyD: I had not delved that far back into the history. Whatever the outcome, the page should be protected against further IP misconduct. BD2412 T 19:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; well noted, AllyD. The original SparkBuild, in the software sense, seems to be a free version of a CloudBees product[1], and since that business already has an article, anything relevant to SparkBuild could go there. If no one has even noticed that the SparkBuild article got squatted nearly a year ago, then it's unlikely there is a great demand for such material. Meanwhile, the squatters are thoroughly unconvincing when it comes to notability. So there is nothing to be achieved by keeping the current article. Its remaining two references are both long-since gone. Elemimele (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CloudBees, but only if what above comment by Elemimele is true. Alice Jason (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Firstly, regarding the engineering firm that has occupied this article since Sept 2020, it is a copy-paste from their Weebly site (including the mis-spellings); no evidence of notability provided or found. Secondly, regarding the build tool from Electric Cloud / CloudBees, it seems lacking in non-announcement-based evidence that notability has been attained (WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT); a merge-redirect to the vendor page may be possible, but would I think result in WP:UNDUE imbalance there. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 15 August 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 08:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Turkmen[edit]

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

As far as I can see, none of the references refer to "Southern Turkmen". I submitted a PROD, but it was removed on the basis that one reference talked about "Iranian Turkmen". If multiple sources give significant coverage of "Iranian Turkmen" there would be a justification for an article with that title, but I can find no evidence for coverage of "Southern Turkmen" as a language. David Biddulph (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Lack of outside coverage to the topic at hand, I agree with language. David Biddulph. Gonzafer001 (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify for further improvement. An article about a language is encyclopedically interesting, but if it isn't ready for main space (even as a stub it lacks sources supporting even the existence of the topic), then it shouldn't be in main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's "concern" when prodding the article was "The references which I have looked at talk about Turkmen, but not about 'Southern Turkmen' specifically." Rightly or wrongly, the article had said that Southern Turkmen was also called Iranian Turkmen. The very first reference I happened to click on was the sil.org one, which unfortunately didn't present, but did describe, Abdollah Nazari and Judy Routamaa, "The Iranian Turkmen language from a contact linguistics perspective" (indexed by its publisher here). In the entry for "Turkmen" in the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed; Elsevier, 2005), L. Johanson (i.e. Lars Johanson) writes "The second main dialect group [of Turkmen] is found in the regions on and beyond the borders to Iran and Uzbekistan. These dialects are more distant from Standard Turkmen, lacking, for example, the interdental pronunciation of the sibilants s and z." Gerhard Doerfer, "Turkic languages of Iran" (pp 273-282 of Lars Johanson and Éva Á. Csató, eds, The Turkic Languages, Routledge, 2015) says quite a bit more about Turkmen and other Turkic languages in Iran; unfortunately it's complex and doesn't lend itself to summarizing. A little later this year, Cambridge UP will publish Johanson's book simply titled Turkic; there may well be more in that. There's a worthwhile subject here, and it may be that there are resources about it in Russian, Turkish, Persian or other languages. However, this is very unsatisfactory in its current state; therefore, ~~draftify~~. -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC) "Draftify" struck out. (See below.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: delete. The paper by Abdollah Nazari and Judy Routamaa I mentioned above, "The Iranian Turkmen language from a contact linguistics perspective", is (legally!) available free of charge via this page. It identifies five "dialects of the Turkmen of Iran" (all spoken somewhere along the northernmost fringe of that nation). There may have been excellent reasons for the field researcher, Nazari, not to have wanted (or been able) to venture into Afghanistan; however, if Iranian Turkmen and Afghan Turkmen could be constructively classed together as variants of a southern form of Turkmen, it's hard to see why there's no occurrence of the string "afghan" anywhere in the paper. (There's also none of "south".) Perhaps these dialects can be lumped together, but if so then the onus is on the creator of the article, Wikiman2021language to demonstrate this. (Instead, Wikiman2021language has splattered the draft with categories ranging eastwards as far as Pakistan and China, perhaps in the belief that any Turkic language spoken south of Turkmenistan is southern Turkmen.) Therefore my change to "delete", though I'm open to reasoned persuasion by Wikiman2021language or of course anyone else. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. DMySon (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Turkmen language supports the existence of several dialects of Turkmen, with the Iranian and Afghan versions differing from Standard Turkmen. Based on what's at Turkmen language (and best I can tell from using Google Translate on the Persian-language version of the page), the Iranian and Afghan dialects of Turkmen aren't that different from Standard Turkmen. It might be able to find enough to salvage this article, but I'm not hopeful. —Carter (talk) 17:58, 8 August 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. There is clear consensus here that a standalone article isn't appropriate, and that this should be merged into a broader topic. There's less clear consensus on what that should be: Draft:Siliceous earth is a reasonable possibility; Draft:Wellheim Formation is another. I will leave that decision to other discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neuburg siliceous earth[edit]

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

How is this meaningfully different from diatomaceous earth? It should not have its own article.

No independent source has been shown to support any such assumption. Göske, 2008 and Göske & Kachler, 2008 try to establish the material's uniqueness, but the first is an expertise paid for by the producing company and in the second Göske can not be assumed to be an independent author.

A paragraph in the article Diatomaceous earth might be considered appropriate, but only if it can be shown (by an independent source) that this substance is meaningfully different or special, as a statement like "The producer claims..." would be of dubious value.

By the way, I tried to get an answer to my leading question from mineralogy experts listed on the English and German project pages but sadly found no one who cared to look into this. ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elsner, 2016 has the following relevant quotes:

German: Wesentlich weniger als 95 % SiO 2 enthält ein nur in einer Region in Deutschland vorkommender Quarzrohstoff, die Kieselerde bzw. „Neuburger Kieselerde“. Da diese sehr hochwertig ist und nur als Industriemineral Verwendung findet, soll auch sie im Folgenden beschrieben werden.
— Elsner, p.7

Only one silica resource in a single German region has significantly less than 95% SiO₂: Siliceous earth (German: Kieselerde), also known as Neuburger Kieselerde. As the material is very high-grade and is only used as for industrial purposes, it shall be included in the following description.
— my own translation

German: Ein ganz besonderes Industriemineral stellt auch Kieselerde dar. Dieser Rohstoff kommt in Deutschland nur im Raum Neuburg an der Donau vor und wird deswegen auch als „Neuburger Kieselerde“ oder "Neuburger Kieselweiß" bezeichnet. [...] Sie besteht aus extrem feinkörniger Kieselsäure (ca. 80%) sowie Kaolinitpartikeln (ca. 20 %). Diese Kieselsäure unterscheidet sich deutlich von Quarz und anderen kristallinen SiO₂-Modifikationen.
— Elsner, p.45

A very special industry material is siliceous earth (German: Kieselerde). There is only a single known deposit in Germany, in the region of Neuburg an der Donau. It is thus also known as Neuburger Kieselerde or "Neuburger Kieselweiß". [...] It consists of extremely fine grains of siliceous earth (c. 80%) and kaolinite particles (c. 20%). This siliceous earth is noticably different from quartz and other crystalline SiO₂-modifications
— my own translation

Note that Elsner cites no sources for these statements.
I accept the fact that the material contains less than 95% SiO₂. But I still doubt the assumption that this alone makes it sufficently special and meaningfully different from other similar materials.
Please also note that the International Mineralogical Association does not recognize it as a mineral in its own right (source in article). I'd love to hear an opinion from someone with experience in mineralogy. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like you to note that most of the sources used in the article have some connection to Hoffmann GmbH. Five of the linked sources are linked from their servers. At least five have been written by self-identifying Hoffmann employees, or were official co-prodcutions with the company (e.g. Schönrock, 2008).
Two of the article's sources have the term "one of a kind" in their titles to describe the substance. To me this illustrates a certain urgency with which the producer attempted to push for the general notability of his product long before he tried for a Wikipedia page.

As I stated on the article's talk page previously, I think this is all part of a long term publicity campaign for something quite common to make it look special. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed this discussion on the talk page of WikiProject Geology to obtain an expert opinion. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the peer-reviewed literature, I cannot find a reliable source that provides any indication that Neuburg siliceous earth (Neuburger Kieselerde) is notable enough to justify its own Wikipedia article. It is the common name of commercial grade siliceous earth that forms only a small part of the Neuburg Kieselerde Member of the Wellheim Formation. The Neuburg Kieselerde Member has been argued to have "the most diverse fossil assemblage of the Danubian Cretaceous Group." Thus, there might be enough notability for a Wikipedia article about the Wellheim Formation in which the current Neuburg siliceous earth article could condensed down to two or three sentences about it uses and omitting the promotional-POV material. A few pertinent papers are:

Schneider, S., Jaeger, M., Kroh, A., Mitterer, A., Niebuhr, B., Vodrážka, RadekK, Wilmsen, M., Wood, CJ and Zágoršek, K., 2013. Silicified sea life – Macrofauna and palaeoecology of the Neuburg Kieselerde Member (Cenomanian to Lower Turonian Wellheim Formation, Bavaria, southern Germany). Acta Geologica Polonica , 63(4), pp. 555-610.

Wilmsen, M. and Niebuhr, B., 2010. On the age of the Upper Cretaceous transgression between Regensburg and Neuburg an der Donau (Bavaria, southern Germany). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 256, pp.267-278.

and

Schneider, H., 1966. Silikosegefährdung durch Neuburger Kieselkreide. International Archive for Industrial Pathology and Industrial Hygiene , 22 (4), pp.323-341. Paul H. (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment The Neuburg siliceous earth is not a type of diatomaceous earth. According to Niebuhr et al. (2013), given above, "...limestones and marly limestones that contained large amounts of biogenic silica (e.g., siliceous opoka; see Pożaryska 1952; Niebuhr et al. 1997) are regarded as the primary, unaltered sediment that was turned into the Neuburg Siliceous Earth during decalcification, and sagging into karst depressions in Cenozoic times." Thus, the Neuburg Siliceous Earth consists not of diatoms. Instead, it consists of silicified limestones. Paul H. (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a draft at Draft:Hoffmann Mineral, and I think maybe between them there's enough for an article? Maybe merge this with that? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you four your explanation, Paul H., and supplying the relevant sources.
Stuartyeates, if you read the discussion on Draft:Hoffmann Mineral's talk page, you will find that no reliable / independent source has yet been presented to demonstrate the company's notability.
Btw, will this discussion be archived? I'd like to use it as a reference point for German Wikipedia. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On en.wiki AfD discussions are normally archived. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to find any mass newspaper digitisation projects of German language materials, since that's where I'd expect to find coverage in .nz. Are there literally no such collections? or am I missing something? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neuburg Siliceous Earth is indeed a raw material worth mentioning that´s already mined by the ancient Romans. It´s used worldwide in the elastomer sector and in the paint and varnish industry. I refer to an old delete discussion in which the article was called justified. Only a part about Hoffmann Mineral was inserted. This suggestion came from the deletion discussion of the Hoffmann Mineral article.Draft:Hoffmann Mineral--NinaSeitle (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartyeates I found this collection of online newspaper archives by Uni Bamberg. Note that they all appear to have a paywall; the university library offers an access package if you subscribe to their service.
The "Zefys" service offered by Berlin State Library appears to have exactly what you're looking for, albeit also behind a paywall. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination asks "How is this meaningfully different from diatomaceous earth?". Industrial Inorganic Chemistry explains that "The kieselguhrs should not be confused with silcaeous earth...". So, as this material is distinctly different and industrially important, there is no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Andrew Davidson is absolutely correct. My original question has been answered by Paul H. above: It is not diatomaceous earth at all, but a kind of siliceous earth (located in the Wellheim formation).
So the next logical step would be to ask "How is this meaningfully different from siliceous earth?".
Please note that our mineralogy expert still voted delete since his answer to that next question was (in short) "It is not."
To sum up my main concern once more: I'm afraid that Neuburger Kieselerde is just a brand name, blown up for marketing purposes, which always brings a danger of misrepresenting the facts and misleading the reader.
At this point I'd prefer to keep the neutral and informative parts of this article as part of a proposed new article siliceous earth which would have a higher priority anyway than this (claimed) special instance of it. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that incorporating "...the neutral and informative parts of this article..." into a newer article about either siliceous earths or the Wellheim Formation would be a proper course of action. The Wellheim Formation is also significant for the fossils that it contains and being significant evidence for a Cretaceous shallow sea that once covered most of Germany. Paul H. (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neuburg Siliceous Earth is not a registered brand name. It is a unique raw material that only occurs in the Neuburg area and its surroundings. It was created 95 million years ago when parts of southern Germany were covered by the sea. After the sea receded, layers of limestone were formed by collapses into which the siliceous earth sank and was preserved. The report about the Wellheim Formation also reports about the Neuburg Siliceous Earth. It was even co-authored by an employee of Hoffmann Mineral. I am still of the opinion that the article has its right to exist here because it is about the raw material and not about the geological aspect.--NinaSeitle (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: NinaSeitle (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Comment I never said anything about it being a registered brand name or not, NinaSeitle.
Anyway, contrary to your statement and according to the official German trademark registry, your company has indeed registered it as a trademark.
I marked your last post with {{COI editor}}, since you self-declared as having a conflict of interest about the subject on your user page, being an employee of Hoffmann Mineral GmbH, the article subject's sole producer. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Paul H. for help with creating the article Siliceous earth, which will incorporate this article's relevant information about the Neuburg deposit. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just created Draft:Siliceous earth. Please help, everyone, so it isn't only Paul H. and me. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the rough article structure for the draft (and even reserved a subsection for the Neuburg deposit).
Now it needs to be filled with mineralogical content by knowledgeable users. Please help me there, I'm no mineralogy expert, as I've said before. I will also try to get help with the draft from the Geology portal. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have already a little bit to show on Draft:Siliceous earth now, I think.
I transferred some mineralogical content, as well as some commercial info, from the Neuburg article (this debate's topic) to the equivalent section in the draft.
I'd like to ask anyone knowledgeable, again, to help with expanding the draft so it can become an article. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After translating most of de:Kieselerde and adding it to the draft, I want to inform you of what it says. I.e. that siliceous earth is a historical term that is nowadays diffuse and not much in use, scientifically.
I hadn't expected that. What are your thoughts, of it not being a scientifical term, and what that means for this article and the draft we are working on? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think it should be merged with Draft:Siliceous earth, and given its own section on that page. Thus we cover the Neuburg variety, but don't make it seem more important than it is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note this related inquiry I started on WP:RSN, I'll quote a possibly important observation from there:

So far as I can see, sources say Siliceous earth is either an umbrella term, or the same as Diatomaceous earth, which is where the health claims are made.[2] Alexbrn

I'm also waiting for replies from several federal institutions about the safety of oral ingestion. I also asked them to please explain the definition of siliceous earth they used in their published evaluations, as this area is still unclear to me.

At the moment for the lead, I'd tend to go with

“

Siliceous earth is a diffuse historical term that is not used scientifically anymore. A more scientific name for substances of this kind is Diatomaceous earth.

In recent times its main use was to market mineral compounds consisting mainly of silica. By origin, these substances generally are biogenous in nature. Only a single known producer claims a non-biogenic, terrigenous (lithogenous) origin for his product.

”

What do you think? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update In my opinion, the ongoing debate about this matter at WikiProject Geology is meandering towards including informative content from here into an article on the Wellheim Formation to avoid WP:PROMO. So I created Draft:Wellheim Formation and transferred most of the content here.
The new draft has already received some tender geologist care from Kevmin and Hemiauchenia to flesh out the structure I put there. I especially like the infobox that puts it into a proper geological context.
Please assist with the current draft if you feel you can help improve it. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 09:52, 15 August 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 04:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of COVID-19 vaccination sites in South Africa[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. A huge listing of vaccination sites does not meet the notability guidelines for lists. Although this is important public health information, it is ultimately available elsewhere and it is not appropriate to duplicate this listing in an encyclopedia. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete textbook example of WP:NOTDIR, especially considering it’s extremely mundane and generic info that will be of basically no interest to the average person after the pandemic is over (therefore failing WP:SUSTAINED as well). Dronebogus (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per above, textbook example of Wikipedia is not a directory. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while some people might argue that this should be kept on the basis of being useful (WP:ITSUSEFUL - an argument to avoid), it does count as WP:NOTDIR and there is no need for Wikipedia to duplicate directories from other websites Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this blatant WP:NOTDIR. Needs to die a horrible non-Covid19 related death. Ajf773 (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Yoonadue (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's useful to have that list available somewhere on the Internet but Wikipedia is not the right place for it as noted by everyone above. Pichpich (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR and the information is available at the link BenKuykendall mentioned. Probably could have done WP:PROD but not a big dealSwd7391 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. desmay (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 07:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate information, directory of quickly changing information.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Especially of something like where you can get a particular vaccination, that is bound to change regularly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 11 August 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 04:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the California Senate from Butte County[edit]

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

Absolutely not notable. I don't know why we have similar lists for all the other counties, or why we need an article for a list of historical California State Senate members from this one peculiar county. It's way too specific and standalone to be notable. Love of Corey (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. District boundaries and numbering can change from one election to another, but a list by county can be easier to understand. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are 3,141 counties in the US and 99 legislative houses, so I don't think it's an appropriate organizational method to potentially have more than 6,000 articles listing members in such a way. The primary source may be good for a more comprehensive listing of historical California senators (which are already listed in each district article), but not broken down by 58 counties. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Members of Congress who have represented Erie, Pennsylvania is related. Reywas92^Talk 15:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Counties can be one geographical unit...but as seen by gerrymandering can be easily divided into several smaller districts. This is detail that has to involve making sure each state senate map matches up to the representative in the county, and doing that over so many periods of time and censuses is a massive undertaking that's better dealt with by senate district rather than county. Nate • (chatter) 05:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Down this path lies madness. Especially since the 6,000 lists would just lead to Wikipedia even being more Amero-centric than it already is, so we would have to I guess create lists of each state legislture representative by district in India. With India changing states and districts much more often than the US changes counties and states, that is just giving me a headache even imagining what it would look like. Oh, does that list include all the indepcdent cities in Virginia, or deal with Connecticut totally and Massachusetts partially elimanating counties. Also, Alaska has a complex mess of cities and boroughs, and there are at least 3 cities in the US (Carson City, St. Louis and Baltimore) that exist outside counties. Also there are several counties that once existed that no longer do (OK, less than 25, but still). Down this path clearly lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment JPL didn't even mention the additional fun that is the metro governments like Metro Louisville and Metro-Dade. This would set a very confusing precedent if we kept this. Nate • (chatter) 04:23, 13 August 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 12:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber-Complex Foundation[edit]

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". It was deprodded by User:NemesisAT who on my talk wrote " there appears to be room for expansion from the Polish Wikipedia entry, and because it is newly established and active and thus likely to attract more attention in the future". The latter argument is a WP:ATA#CRYSTAL fallacy (nice one, haven't seen this one in years...), and the former, well, there is not much more on pl wiki, the article there is subject to [[:pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:07:26:Fundacja Cyber-Complex |its own AfD]], and so far only its WP:SPA creator is defending it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References don't pass general notability at this stage. There is an SPA account behind this page (and Thena, which is in draft). --Whiteguru (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (companies). --KonsTomasz (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the organization. Easily fails WP:NORG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 11 August 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 Lascivious Biddies. ✗plicit 04:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get Lucky (The Lascivious Biddies album)[edit]

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

Appears non-notable, couldn't find reviews to establish notability. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not seeing evidence that this album attained notability according to any of the WP:NALBUM criteria. AllyD (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lascivious Biddies. While I do not think this album has received enough significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, I think a redirect would be more beneficial to readers as this is a viable search term and a viable redirect target does exist. Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lascivious Biddies. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lascivious Biddies which has now been opened. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lascivious Biddies for procedural reasons. That way the album article won't fall through the cracks if the band's article gets deleted. And even if the band survives their own AfD, this album has no support of its own beyond a blank AllMusic page and the usual retail/streaming entries. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)

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. Daniel (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Megale[edit]

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

Local politician of small town who's death made the papers. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. GNG doesn’t distinguish between worldwide or local sources. As long it sources are secondary, independent and reliable. Note he didn’t only had coverage after his death; the Italian article was already created in 2010. SportsOlympic (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, WP:GNG is not just an indiscriminate "keep anybody who has n>2 media hits regardless of any other considerations" — GNG most certainly does test sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and not just for whether the raw number of hits has exceeded two. We certainly don't have a rule that "local" coverage is inadmissible for use as Wikipedia sourcing, but we do have a rule that a small smattering of "local" coverage is not necessarily always enough in and of itself. For example, every mayor of everywhere can always show two or three hits in their local media — but our rule is that mayors are not all inherently notable just for existing as mayors, so the distinction between a notable mayor and a non-notable mayor does not turn on just showing a smattering of local media hits, it turns on being able to show a lot of coverage demonstrating a reason to treat him as significantly more important and notable than most other mayors. But that's just not being shown here at all.
And secondly, the fact that the Italian article has existed for a decade isn't determinative: for almost its entire lifespan, it was based entirely on primary sources that aren't support for notability, with no reliable or notability-building sources added at all until the blip of death coverage hit in June. So it shouldn't have existed since 2010, because it never had a properly sourced reason to exist either. Also see WP:WAX for further clarification of why "this is a straight translation of an article that already exists on another language Wikipedia" is not a compelling keep argument in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, articles and sources with an overly local scope aren't considered significant. Geschichte (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Mccapra (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayor of Trapani - As Bearcat mentions, the community expects that there is substantive coverage of the policies and actions of a local elected official. Usually, the expectation is that the coverage is contemporary, adds context to decisions or actions, and ideally not composed solely of local sourcing. --Enos733 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CoSMoS[edit]

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

Doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nytendoz (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There are some good secondary sources, like this one: https://books.google.com/books?id=vjzSCgAAQBAJ However, the current references are not good because they are talking about the TUNA project, not CoSMoS. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:17, 8 August 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 Bandar Seri Begawan#Primary and secondary. Clear consensus not to retain the article, and split/permissive opinions regarding merge v delete, so taking merge per WP:ATD. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Isteri Girls High School[edit]

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

Lacks reliable sources fails GNG Impeeriumalo (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Impeeriumalo (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do not pass WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GermanKity (talk · contribs) Impeeriumalo (talk · contribs) Would you kindly elaborate how it does not pass WP:SCHOOL? Zulfadli51 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, references are not sufficient to prove notability of a school. GermanKity (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If notability can't be shown by references then how can it? If you don't accept references as showing notability then we have to fall back on importance, such as being the first high school for girls in its country. There was recently a change in our guidelines for schools which meant that verified secondary schools are no longer considered automatically notable. That is nothing like guidance that no school outside the Anglophone West can be notable, which seems to be the way that some people are interpreting it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that GermanKity perhaps meant that the references currently used in the article don't establish the subject's notability, Phil Bridger. GermanKity, it's worth remembering that we need to consider sources that might not currently be used - see WP:BEFORE (B2) on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I see now. I think the userid threw me a bit because I usually associate such dropping of the definite article with speakers of Slavic languages, not Germans, but I see now that this user is a native speaker of Russian. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Those three sources are reliable. However the article needs to be expanded with History section showing its significance. enjoyer -- talk 07:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is just barely started. Give it time to be improved. enjoyer -- talk 08:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the nomination or the further "delete" opinion. When nominated the article had two apparently reliable sources, including one that confirmed that this was the first high school for girls in its country. Another has been added since. Was the nominator reading the correct article? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Could be wrong but as far as I know being the oldest of something doesn't automatically grant that thing a right to an article..... nNo objections to merging if desired. –Davey2010^Talk 22:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC lacks significant coverage. Nytendoz (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bandar Seri Begawan#Primary and secondary. I am on the fence with notability on this, though if the claim "first all-girls school in the country" is true, then there may be scope. That doesn't necessarily make it notable outright though. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 15 August 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. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Walker[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. The rationale was Nothing at ITF or WTA that would pass WP:NTENNIS. Summer Universiade doesn't count towards NTENNIS either. Also unable to find the multiple detailed sources required to pass WP:GNG.

This remains valid. In addition, I would say that being chair of tennis at Millfield School isn't a claim to notability either, ~~especially since that school isn't even notable enough for an article itself.~~ Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while Alexandra Walker may not qualify as notable, I'm puzzled by the nomination statement that Millfield School .. "isn't even notable enough for an article itself." It clearly does have an article, and as one of the largest independent schools in the UK, one of the first to go co-ed, and a school with several notable scandals in its past (that made it into the national press) I'd have thought the school's article well-justified. But I agree, merely being a teacher there doesn't confer notability. Elemimele (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my comment accordingly. I had mistakenly thought that she worked for the Prep School rather than Millfield itself. I would still argue that the article in question is more about Millfield than about Walker and doesn't contain any significant coverage or other indication of notability that would justify a stand-alone article for Walker. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I think @Spiderone is right about Walker, and delete is correct. She falls into that unfortunate category of sportspeople who, while a million times better at their sport than the rest of us, and while no doubt doing much good in their career, just isn't in the tiny pantheon of the truly notable. Elemimele (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself to be a good tennis player but would admit that Walker would probably double bagel me without breaking a sweat. Tennis is one of those sports where only a very, very small number of people seem to take up 99% of the coverage. It looks like Walker has spent most of her career playing 10K and 25K events, on a number of occasions not even making it through qualifying for these events. Unfortunately, these events just don't generate the necessary coverage to build a biographical article from. I would love for the average tennis player to get as much coverage as the average footballer but, unfortunately, I can't see it happening any time soon. The only thing that would potentially make her notable is if she had strong newspaper coverage but there is nothing in ProQuest or in the British Newspaper Archive that looks good enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete virtually no basis for WP:NTENNIS, and I couldn't find any press coverage either. Mjquinn_id (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another creation by editor Vecihi91 that is not notable. They are piling up to the point we may need to take action soon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 16 August 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. We're two weeks on from Extraordinary Writ's original closure, and I don't see that very much has changed since then. The !votes are roughly split, with a slight majority of keeps, which means the "delete" !votes need to make a correspondingly strong case to overcome those numbers. The debate seems to hinge on the quality of sources under consideration, with it being suggested that those provided might satisfy a simple reading of GNG, but don't satisfy the supplementary guidance on sourcing given by WP:NCORP. That may be a valid argument, but the keep !votes also had a valid argument that GNG was satisfied, in that they felt that the sourcing was good enough. And it was not shown that the NCORP guideline can unilaterally override GNG in this way. As such, with equal and opposite arguments, it's a fairly clear no consensus, as indeed Extraordinary Writ and Necrothesp had previously determined.. — Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lüftner Cruises[edit]

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

PROD declined. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and pure WP:PROMO. Article created by a public relations firm; all sourcing is PR-related. WP:BEFORE shows no independent reliable sourcing coverage. Goldsztajn (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the suspicious origins of the article, I think notability has been established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Goldsztajn's rationale. @Eastmain i can see how this may appear difficult but let me try and analyze this, you see, pertaining organizations, WP:ORGDEPTH must be present, that is significant coverage must be met. Furthermore per WP:ORGIND sources with a vested interest in the organization can not be considered reliable. When armed with this information the subject of our discussion falls below the notability threshold for organizations. Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article created by an SPA account, so COI and WP:PROMO. As per nom, references are all PR-related. This article - and references - are an advertisement. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A cruise line that operates sixteen vessels would seem to be notable by any definition of common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added additional sources, and agree with Eastmain and Necrothesp. Passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added this source to the article which seems to have ORGCRIT compliant SIGCOV (although, not very strong):

Publishing, Berlitz (2018-05-01). Berlitz River Cruising in Europe & the USA. Apa Publications (UK) Limited. ISBN 978-1-78573-104-4.

I have no strong opinions on company notability. Jumpytoo Talk 16:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:BASIC and Wikipedia:ORGCRIT

added Daniel, Diane (September 30, 2014). "A River Trip in Tulip Season". The New York Times. Retrieved August 2, 2021. Djflem (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone above and per the following sources (The Travel Weekly ones seem a tad promotional however IMHO there's enough here and more online to establish notability.) ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ Clausing, Jeri (Apr 16, 2019). "Luftner Cruises' Wolfgang Luftner on the European river cruise season". www.travelweekly.com. Retrieved 3 August 2021.
^ Bond, Mary (10 April 2018). "Shipyard De Hoop delivers Amadeus Queen river vessel to Lüftner Cruises". seatrade-cruise.com. Retrieved 3 August 2021.
^ Baran, Michelle (April 4, 2018). "Amadeus Queen is different from her sisters". www.travelweekly.com. Retrieved 3 August 2021.
^ Laßmann, von Magdalena (4 August 2020). "Crew-Mitglieder infiziert: Lüftner Cruises von Covid-19-Fällen betroffen". https://www.fvw.de (in German). Retrieved 3 August 2021. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
^ Publishing, Berlitz (1 May 2018). Berlitz River Cruising in Europe & the USA. Apa Publications (UK) Limited. ISBN 978-1-78573-104-4. Retrieved 3 August 2021.
^ Seatrade Cruise Review. Seatrade House. 2003. Retrieved 3 August 2021.

–Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's not a single reference here which passes assessment with flying colours for independent, in-depth coverage. Private, for-profit companies need to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT precisely because of the ways in which public relations and churalism works.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Goldsztajn
https://www.travelweekly.com/On-The-Record/Luftner-Cruises-co-owner-Wolfgang-Luftner	value not understood unknown	travel industry promotion website	interivew, no critical analysis	✘ No
https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news-headlines/shipyard-de-hoop-delivers-amadeus-queen-river-vessel-lu-ftner-cruises	value not understood unknown	travel industry promotion website	Recycled press release	✘ No
https://www.travelweekly.com/River-Cruising/Amadeus-Queen-is-different-from-her-sisters	value not understood unknown	travel industry promotion website	Recycled press release, word for word	✘ No
https://www.fvw.de/touristik/kreuzfahrt/crew-mitglieder-lueftner-cruises-von-covid-19-faellen-betroffen-210827?crefresh=1		value not understood possibly	value not understood Discusses COVID infection in Luftner staff	? Unknown
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Berlitz_River_Cruising_in_Europe_the_USA/m-ycDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22L%C3%BCftner+Cruises%22&pg=PT281&printsec=frontcover		value not understood possibly, but this is a travel guide	Passing mention, effectively a directory listing	✘ No
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Seatrade_Cruise_Review/vEMtAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22L%C3%BCftner+Cruises%22&dq=%22L%C3%BCftner+Cruises%22&printsec=frontcover		value not understood possibly, although industry promotion magazine	Passing mention, single reference	✘ No
https://intransit.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/a-river-trip-in-tulip-season/?searchResultPosition=1		value not understood it is the blog section of the NYT and clearly repeating promotion		? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously I entirely disagree with your analysis here and personally bar TravelWeekly I believe these do meet GNG but I guess we'll agree to disagree on this, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Travel Weekly is not a "travel industry promotion website". It is a reliable source directed to travel industry professionals rather than consumers. Its website says: "Travel Weekly and TravelWeekly.com are the most influential B2B news resources for the travel industry." Seatrade Cruise News is also aimed at travel professionals rather than consumers. The New York Times blogs are also a reliable source, as they are described as "Travel news, deals and tips, written by the editors and reporters of the Travel section." Trade publications have to provide reliable information to their readers; if they don't, they would lose their audience. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Travel Weekly reprints press releases verbatim; that's about as clear an example of an unreliable source as one could find. Blogs of newspapers, especially a newspaper of record, operate at lower standards; the NYT piece is clearly linked to promotional purposes. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing seems fine and note that there's a corresponding article in German too. Applicable policies include WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the Keep !voters have based their arguments on the correct guideline, WP:NCORP, which has a stricter interpretation of requirements for establishing notability than vanilla GNG. WP:BASIC is not appropriate here and neither WP:ATD nor WP:PRESERVE make sense unless the !voter suggests an alternative to deletion. !votes which rely on reasons such as "sourcing seem fine", "passes GNG", "I think notabilty has been established" and "A cruise line that operates sixteen vessels would seem to be notable by any definition of common sense" should be discounted. 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 as per the breakdown above. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I non-administratively closed this AfD as "no consensus", but I vacated that closure after a challenge on my talk page. The AfD may be reclosed at any time by any uninvolved administrator. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I challenged the close on the basis of what I pointed out in my Delete !vote above. Most of the Keep !votes don't bother referring to any guideline or fail to address the issue of sources that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability as highlighted by Celestina007 and me. My Delete !vote above was not responded to and no references have been provided that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I agree with HighKing. AFD's are about brilliant minds well versed in our WP:PAG and “arguing” brilliantly with policy. @Andrew Davidson your keep !vote literally states “The sourcing seems fine and note that there's a corresponding article in German too. Applicable policies include WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE”. I don’t mean to offend you but I believe that falls under WP:ATA, lets start with this “The sourcing seems fine” please can you show how WP:SIRS is met, or rather can you explain how it applies and is satisfied? secondly “and note that there's a corresponding article in German too” please what policy expressly states that if an article exits in another language it is auto notable on the English Wikipedia? Lastly “Applicable policies include WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE” ATD literally states “If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page” how do you propose we improve an article on a non notable entity? Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German is the native language for this topic and so one should naturally look there first. The German Wikipedia runs a tight ship and so existence there is telling. And policies are stronger than guidelines – that's the point of the distinction. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK that the German language Wikipedia has its own set of policies and guidelines, completely separate and different that the English language wikipedia? So when you say the German language Wikipedia "runs a tight ship", how can we interpret that? What does that even mean? The German language Wikipedia doesn't have the equivalence of WP:NCORP. They methods used between each project differ, sometimes substantially. Your statements "German is the native language for this topic" and "existence there is telling" are entirely meaningless at the English language Wikipedia. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think a WP:SNG like WP:NCORP can present a higher threshold for notability than WP:GNG, only a lower threshold. If a topic meets GNG than it is assumed to be notable, whatever some SNG might say. This does. The original close was entirely correct and should not have been challenged. There clearly was no consensus, which defaults to keep. I get rather tired of these calls to "ignore all the !votes that don't agree with what I say because I'm clearly right and they're clearly wrong"! It's patronising, condescending and against the spirit of Wikipedia. Just accept that, unless factually incorrect, what others say is as valid as what you say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed this RFP earlier this year (archived) which resulted in changes to WP:SNG ~~(which is policy, not a mere guideline)~~ and which says SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies.

I understand why it might seem like my harping on about NCORP is an attempt to remove !votes I don't like (although I'm not a big fan of how you expressed it), but the reality is that NCORP is in fact the appropriate guideline and that it is deliberately stricter in its interpretation of references that may be used to establish notability. Other people point out that topics are deemed notable if they meet *either* GNG or an SNG (since many SNGs remove requirements), but NCORP doesn't add or remove any requirements from GNG, merely provides clarification and examples on sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability for organizations. For example, the definition of "Independent" is often glossed over when examining sources for topic areas but not here. So when an AfD on a company/organization is filled with discussions where editors are pointing to GNG and not to NCORP and especially in circumstances where it has been pointed out with specific reference to the sources and NCORP guidelines why those sources fail our criteria, then I am pointing out something which it "factually incorrect" as you put it. It is of course entirely up to the closing admin to weigh those arguments correctly and to understand which arguments are based on the appropriate guideline. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are, by definition, not hard rules and even our policies are not strict per WP:BURO, WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW. So, in discussions of this sort, it's the merits of the individual case which matter most. And this topic seems fine – a cruise line which owns a fleet of ships is quite reasonable as a topic because individual ships tend to be notable. HighKing is just trying to WP:BLUDGEON this per WP:STEAM and I agree with Necrothesp that this is vexatious. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the last bastion of argument, lets pick one part of a guideline or even a completely irrelevant one and when that doesn't stick, IAR. And keep repeating that this article is fine regardless of our policies and guidelines, and anybody who calls this out is BLUDGEONing the process. Seriously - all we're looking for is a reference (actually two) that meets NCORP and one that you're happy to defend. I mean WP:DELAFD policy says These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you're getting that WP:SNG is a policy, when it's merely a section of WP:N, which is a guideline! So, no, it clearly isn't any sort of policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I've struck that bit. For some reason I thought WP:N was policy. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would happily withdraw this nomination if it could be demonstrated that there was independent, in-depth coverage of this company. Despite a river full (pardon the pun) of sourcing being added to the article, I struggle to see any source which is not obviously advertorial/PR/churnalism or directory listings. If editors who support keep can point to pieces they regard as not being of that nature, it would hopefully move this discussion forward. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:32, 20 August 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.

[1] Clausing, Jeri (Apr 16, 2019). "Luftner Cruises' Wolfgang Luftner on the European river cruise season". www.travelweekly.com. Retrieved 3 August 2021.

[2] Bond, Mary (10 April 2018). "Shipyard De Hoop delivers Amadeus Queen river vessel to Lüftner Cruises". seatrade-cruise.com. Retrieved 3 August 2021.

[3] Baran, Michelle (April 4, 2018). "Amadeus Queen is different from her sisters". www.travelweekly.com. Retrieved 3 August 2021.

[4] Laßmann, von Magdalena (4 August 2020). "Crew-Mitglieder infiziert: Lüftner Cruises von Covid-19-Fällen betroffen". https://www.fvw.de (in German). Retrieved 3 August 2021. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[5] Publishing, Berlitz (1 May 2018). Berlitz River Cruising in Europe & the USA. Apa Publications (UK) Limited. ISBN 978-1-78573-104-4. Retrieved 3 August 2021.

[6] Seatrade Cruise Review. Seatrade House. 2003. Retrieved 3 August 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]