Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sakala Kala Vallabhudu

Sakala Kala Vallabhudu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Does not meet the requirements of WP:NFILM with routine coverage/press releases. Barring a review from 123Telugu, cannot find any reliable reviews in Telugu and English. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete This is the other one the page creator possibly had in mind, maybe even this (the site is used enough as a source in en-wiki). But NFILM and WP:GNG guidelines are rebuttable presumptions of notability, to be proved with enough sources for the policy WP:V when questioned at AfD. There is no reason now to presume that any new sources will ever be found for this 2 year old film, for the page to be anything beyond the stub it is. --Hemantha (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep the reviews found in this discussion by the previous poster along with Telegu sources are enough for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    😀 To clarify, NTV Telugu was already there. Telugu Filmnagar definitely can't be used as a source since it is an outlet of a brand management company heavily involved with Telugu film production. hemantha (brief) 07:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hank Kunneman

Hank Kunneman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This was tagged for speedy deletion a few hours ago, and since then I've been looking at it in the CSD queue trying to decide if A7 actually applies or not (and by the fact no other admin has deleted it, I assume they've all been in the same quandary). To me, the fact that it's taking this long to decide means it's not unambiguously inappropriate for Gpedia and thus WP:A7 doesn't apply, so here we are. It's right on the borderline; the sources are all very poor quality and a quick WP:BEFORE search turns up a lot of passing mentions and froth in blogs, but nothing obvious I can see that's usable as a Gpedia source. As a contentious BLP, this isn't a page we should be keeping unless and until reliable sources can be found.  ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The major source used in this article is Right Wing Watch. As an established non-profit with a history of reporting in this area I believed them to be a reliable source. Is this not the case? Or is it only the more "blogish"/casual sources in this article that are the problem? (Forgive my ignorance as I'm just getting my feet wet in editing Gpedia. I am certainly interested in improving the quality of this article, for its sake and the sake of learning for future articles.) Jimsorzo (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I know nothing of the individual and thus take no specific view on him. However, Right Wing Watch sounds like a politically motivated website that is set up to attack people like the subject. If so, this is a POV source, however accurate in its content; meaning that this is in nature an ATTACK article. Having said that, I find some of the the views reported obnoxious, but that is merely my POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment I tagged this article for speedy deletion because the subject seemed notorious but not notable. I think a discussion here at an AFD is more appropriate than speedy deletion and want to thank Iridescent for starting this discussion. As it stands today, it looks like this will be relisted at least once more and might be headed towards a "soft delete". Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Beeni

Beeni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

No reliable, secondary sources covering this subject in detail have been provided, and a search for scholarly sources on the subject turns up nothing. The article, as it stands, falls into the category of WP:JUNK, neither defining the sport it professes to be about, how it might be different from other forms of wrestling, where the name comes from, or anything of that ilk. The only sources are highly specific news reports of a supposed world champion-defining match in the North of England that equally do not describe the sport in any great detail. This is not great from a WP:NOTNEWS perspective, and, arguably, the actual discussion of the support in these sources is also quite trivial, as they are focused on the matches and the wrestlers more than the sport itself. Only the Manchester Evening New link appears to have more than a few lines on the sport itself. Upon writing this, there was also no inline citation whatsoever supporting any of the claims. Even if this a fringe sport, one would would expect some slightly better sourcing that this to support it; for the moment, it is not convincingly notable from the perspective of Gpedia's standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This sport isn't an international one as described in the article. Rather, it is a traditional form of arm wrestling played by some Kashmiri tribes, and the Pakistani diaspora in England. The game is mentioned in the following journal: https://www.academia.edu/36775183/THE_INTERNATIONAL_JOURNAL_OF_HUMANITIES_and_SOCIAL_STUDIES_Socio_Economic_and_Educational_Status_of_Tribal_Gujjar_and_Bakarwal_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir_An_Overview The article can be improved by adding relevant citations and content. Toofllab (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Horns Up (radio)

Horns Up (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable one-station radio show fails the WP:GNG. Contested prod by article creator in 2016. It appears to no longer be on the air. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 18:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Housing in the United States by state

Housing in the United States by state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Could in theory be a good article, but in its current form it is a list of links to categories for 38 states, plus two sentences introduction and three sentences about Wisconsin. Rusalkii (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Weak keep though it surely needs improvement. Helps the set of pages w/ the shared nav template hold together. Category pages are not a good substitute. – SJ + 22:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete That was well-intended, but completely useless, at least in present state. The wikilings to categories should not be used. Basically, someone wanted to do something with this page, but then dropped it in a ridiculous state more than a year ago. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete largely incomplete article. Has potential, but needs a lot of work. Could go back into draft for more work, beofre going into mainspace again. if an article needs a bit of work to make it better, I sometimes jump in, but this would be *massive* to get it to the point to get it in shape. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

John Bechdel

John Bechdel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Just a random band member. Not enough to demonstrate notability FMSky (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Bechdel has a 30 plus year career in notable bands and has worked with notable artists worldwide. He is also credited on albums and singles that have charted and were nominated for Grammy awards. John Bechdel has approved and authorized his bio and discography personally on his wiki page. He is very much alive and a touring/working musician. I am editing on his behalf. Rage4order (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I have posted a WP:COI notice on your talk page. Please read it carefully and follow the instructions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Mild Delete He's been associated with the music industry for 30 years, but the article has no reliable sources about him/his accomplishments. This one's going to take a bit of digging to make it past the notability bar. I find one interview in the Orlando Sentinel in GNews and several in what appear to be metal band specialized publications. No desire to dig for them, but they might just exist. As it sits now, the article isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Chris Grove

Chris Grove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Businessman BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO- coverage is either not independent or merely WP:PASSING mentions about the person. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Gary Dahl (entrepreneur)

Gary Dahl (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Proposing delete or merge with Pet Rock. He is the founder of Pet Rock, a company that sold rocks and had a short success for 6 months. He is only known for that. He hardly made $4 million and not in anyway a household name. Caphadouk (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally soft deleleted, but undeleted and relisting by request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete Pet Rock already has some biographical information on Dahl and so I don't think this article is necessary. Although I did find it interesting that he won the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest but that fact is also listed on the contest page. I'm old enough to remember that Pet Rocks were a big deal covered in the media in the mid-1970s but all of the relevant information is covered in the article about them. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Not enough RS, falls short of WP:GNG, unless more can be found. Merge with Pet rock (which indeed was a worldwide phenomenon at the time) Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Walid Al Jassim

Walid Al Jassim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

References based off of single event, BLP1E. scope_creepTalk 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Samara Barend

Samara Barend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This individual was a political candidate back in 2004, and received the usual coverage that all political candidates receive. She does not seem to have received any significant coverage before or since then, meaning she fails WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Gavin Wimsatt

Gavin Wimsatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Only played for mere minutes. scope_creepTalk 21:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ignyte Awards

Ignyte Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable award. Established in 2020. scope_creepTalk 21:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Pusse-Ela

Pusse-Ela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:V? An alternative spelling is Pusseela. The sourcing on the substub itself is non-existent - Pusseela is however mentioned at http://www.statistics.gov.lk/Resource/districtCode/Central%20Province.pdf, which my browser considers a security liability and won't let me open. The coordinates point to a densely forested area, so Pusseela is maybe a forest? A wilderness park? Should be discussed. Geschichte (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Lanzas

Lanzas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

After the deletion of Irma Lanzas, this SIA has only one entry. Normally I would just redirect to that entry, Joaquín María del Castillo y Lanzas, but Lanzas was del Castillo's maternal surname and thus not a name he would be normally called by. Given that not all of our readers know how Spanish surnames work, Lanzas may still be a plausible search term for him, but it might also be a plausible search term for someone looking for a list of people with the surname Lanza. So I suggest that we redirect to Lanza and include Joaquín María del Castillo y Lanzas in "See also". But I could also see a case for just deleting and let the search results handle it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Huang Wei (businessman)

Huang Wei (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

I couldn't find sources to show that they pass WP:GNG as the current source does not show sufficient notability by itself. A WP:BEFORE search was hampered by results for the live-streamer Viya (influencer) who has the same birth name so it's quite possible that I've missed non-English sources. Suonii180 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Gobookmart

Gobookmart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This isn’t irredeemably promotional is why I didn’t tag with a G11. In actuality this is a very bother line promotional non notable article on a website that is in accordance with WP:NOT#INTERNET. The article describes their goals and treats this like a WP:LINKEDIN, the references are very unreliable also. Celestina007 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Index of Sri Lanka–related articles

Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (0–9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (A) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (C) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (D) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (E) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (G) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (J) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (K) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (L) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (M) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (N) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (P) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (Q–R) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (S) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (T) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (U–V) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (W–X) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (Y–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are alphabetical lists of articles related to Sri Lanka. As discussed in the recent nominations for the Brazil and India indexes, these sorts of lists have very low utility for readers and bring massive maintenance burdens that no-one has been willing to shoulder.

The page Index of Sri Lanka–related articles comes with the usual issues for the genre: it's got just over a thousand links, which represent a tiny fraction of the 18,000 actual Sri Lanka–related articles tracked by Gpedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka. This can mislead readers into believeing that articles don't exist on a large number of topics related to the country.

The other set of pages – Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (0–9) through Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (Y–Z) – suffers, unusually, from the opposite problem. With a total of over 28,000 links, these lists have a large number of entries without any identifiable connection to Sri Lanka: from South Indian films (like Akam (film) or Akale) to Bangladeshi neighbourhoods (like Akania and Akania Nasirpur) to Burmese temples (Zinkyaik Pagoda) or Tibetan power stations (like Zhikong Hydro Power Station). – Uanfala (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Krekel van der Woerd Wouterse

Krekel van der Woerd Wouterse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Unreferenced since 2006, fails WP:PROMO, WP:CORP, no corresponding NL Wiki article to look at for potential references. My WP:BEFORE found lots of studies by them, but no significant coverage of them. FOARP (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi gidonb, thanks for responding. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this appears to be an interview with G. Prins, the director of KvdWW, and interviews are not independent coverage. We need non-interview articles profiling the company. They should also be a pass for the audience requirements of WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
You're right. There are more interviews and tons of coverage of the company's research. Judging by the companies and economic branches affected, this was an extremely impactful organization. But rules are rules. In this case use the following sources for a mention in the Deloitte article, where the acquisition is missing.
Bedrijfsadviseurs gaan samen. De Tijd, 23-06-1971, p. 10. Via Delpher, 09-01-2022.
KWW dochter. Het Vrije Volk, 23-10-1969, p. 17. Via Delpher, 09-01-2022.
I.e. just merge into Deloitte. For this we will also need a reference for the acquisition.Here. gidonb (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

National Business Research Institute

National Business Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Appears in conflict with WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Fails WP:GNG per lack of reliable secondary sources. Main editors appear to be primary stakeholders in the company itself. Headphase (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This is another article with the same issues that Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 had (see Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination). McCool did not play a single test with the team in England, and didn't do much as part of the team in general. There simply isn't enough to justify this fork off of his main article at Colin McCool. The "role" section is the only thing here that's actually encyclopedic; it should be merged into Colin McCool if there's anything there of significance not already there. This fork even admits such:

  • "A frontline leg spinner and middle-order batsman, McCool was not prominent in the team's success."
  • "he was one of two squad members who did not play a Test on tour. Along with Doug Ring, the trio called themselves "ground staff" because of the paucity of their on-field duties in the major matches and they often sang ironic songs about their status."

The prose here is largely sourced from statistics and fails to demonstrate the need for this fork. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bipindada Shankarrao Kolhe

Bipindada Shankarrao Kolhe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NPOL as a non-winning candidate and seems to thoroughly fail WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unelected candidates do not get Gpedia articles just for being candidates, but this features neither any sourced evidence that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy nor a credible reason to deem his candidacy somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat. Mccapra (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete 2009 candidate for the Kopargaon Assembly. No identifiable redirect target. --Enos733 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ray Oliveira

Ray Oliveira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that significantly discuss the subject. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, some of them about other people with the same name. ... discospinster talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hamdard (NGO) Ramban

Hamdard (NGO) Ramban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

There are several issues with this article. 1. No significant coverage about the organization itself in any of the sources, most are passing mentions. 2. Puffery and attempts at promotion with too many images. Statements across the article are repetitive in nature. 3. No COI declared by article creator, have also removed the tag added to article. Removed PROD without fixing the issues. Previous attempts at creating the article has been speedy deleted per user/talk page. MT TrainTalk 14:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Christopher Joye

Christopher Joye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Same deletion rationale as the previous AfD, because the same content issues still apply, given the content has not changed since its undeletion. Non-notable biography, 80% of the references on the page cite works that are directly written by the subject, notability not established from third-party reliable sources, article prose is excessively promotional. The overwhelming majority of Google hits are either LinkedIn pages, promotional pages, company staff lists, blogs, columnist profiles, articles that the subject has written themselves, or a one-sentence very passing mention of the subject. This article likely exists for the purpose of search engine optimization, and does not serve any encyclopedic purpose that is within project scope. --benlisquareTCE 15:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete or at best WP:TNT If the unreferenced content is removed, and the primary and non independent referenced content is removed, and the self congratulatory content is removed, there is very very little left. There is sufficent material to be found to write a reasonable stub article but that is about it. There are some "good" looking references such as this?and some balance like this? to be found about the subject, but that is about it, and I tried hard I think. If kept it needs to be redone from scratch. Aoziwe (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bombaat

Bombaat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as only one review (rediff) was found DonaldD23 talk to me 16:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Cheat You Fair: The Story of Maxwell Street

Cheat You Fair: The Story of Maxwell Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Non notable documentary with minor awards. Nothing found in a BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Marit Jessen Rüdiger

Marit Jessen Rüdiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, What a Night (1992 film)

Oh, What a Night (1992 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dream Machine (film)

Dream Machine (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV; I found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Demolition University

Demolition University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Escuadrón

Escuadrón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Christine Lee (solicitor)

Christine Lee (solicitor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, this person is not notable outside of a single event, and does not have lasting/persistent notability. WP:BLPCRIME also applies. Gpedia is not a newspaper or an indiscriminate collection of information. Our focus on her as a person fails certain privacy standards as well, as she is not a politician or celebrity. She is extremely likely to remain a low-profile individual. Therefore, it is almost impossible to maintain a NPOV on her life, given that her coverage will be UNDUE and focused on smaller news reports. — Shibbolethink ( ) 14:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete but don't redirect to Barry Gardiner as he wasn't the only parliamentarian involved. I am the creator of this article and it appears I made a mistake doing so per WP:BLP1E. LondonIP (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Tonny Fisker

Tonny Fisker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NBADMINTON and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bellinda Myrick

Bellinda Myrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Non notable singer/actress who fails the notability guidelines. I found only a few sources that mention her including 1, 2 and 3 Sahaib3005 (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Joe Gray (actor)

Joe Gray (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Not notable actor. All his work is uncredited and the only source for this is IMDB. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • My first instinct was to !vote delete. A google search returns almost nothing other than material based on this article. But a Google Books search returns an awful lot of hits. It looks like he was there for a lot of important films, played a variety of small roles, did some fight choreography, stood in for the biggest names of the era, and was friends with some A-listers. Kind of makes me think of Cliff from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. There's the encyclopedia of stuntmen entry for significant coverage, but I'd want to find at least one more like that before falling on the keep side. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Abhay Jotva

Abhay Jotva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Not a notable politician. Subject's main claim to prominence is as a district opposition leader, that in itself doesn't warrant an article. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NPOL. Ts12rActalk to me 12:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Matas Vaitkus

Matas Vaitkus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Onel5969 TT me 15:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. A Google search, including in Lithuanian sources, did not turn up any articles that go towards GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In my personal opinion this basketball player meets WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL requirements to be included in notable sportsperson.

There is a source in article which has a independent basketball sportsnews article exclusively about this player who plays in 1st Division and 2nd Division simultaneously.[1]

Also player played for Lithuania U19 National Team in FIBA Under-19 Basketball World Cup and competed against USA, France, Australia, Senegal etc. and such players as Tyrese Haliburton, Joel Ayayi etc. source of FIBA Player profile also provided in article. [2] And positioned 4th in the world.

In my opinion thats more than sufficient evidence and source for player to be notable sportsman.

User:Paulmafija (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paulmafija: Per the general notability guideline, a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Articles on team or league websites are considered primary sources and as such are not considered independent of the subject. Other than this game review, there are no articles that cover Vaitkus in any detail. Alvaldi (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@Alvaldi: on the article I also included another source earlier today [3] which is independent of the subject. I can include many numerous sources, e.g www.proballers.com article which shows all latest achievments and records. I was just unaware that team and leagues wsource counts as primary, so sorry for that. (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC).
@Paulmafija: The article you are refering to only briefly mentions him twice and would not be considered a significant coverage. The Proballers source is a player profile/database listing that does not go towards passing GNG per WP:NOTDATABASE. Alvaldi (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@Alvaldi: I don't want to insult your judgement, but 800 word article [4] exclusively talks avout this player. While second article [5] even though is brief but talks about his achievment on first game at highest level. I seen articles on sportsplayer with just League's profile. (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC).
@Paulmafija: No offence taken. The source you mention does indeed talk about Vaitkus a bit and I'm fine with counting it towards GNG. However, for the article to be kept it requires multiple indepth sources from different publications. A good rule of thumb is to have at least three good indepth sources. I've also seen articles where the only source is a league's profile or some database listing and those usually get deleted if taken to AfD, unless they pass one of the sports-specific notability guideline (and even then they ain't 100% guaranteed to be kept). Alvaldi (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "Netikėtai į „Neptūną" patekęs gynėjas naudojasi visomis progomis – net į mačą atvykus trečiajame kėlinyje". basketnews.lt (in Lithuanian). 8 November 2021.
  2. ^ "Matas Vaitkus (LTU)'s profile – FIBA U19 World Cup 2019". FIBA. Retrieved 6 January 2022.
  3. ^ "Iššovusiam „Neptūno" jaunuoliui – trenerio pagyros: „Įrodinėja savo vertę"". basketnews.lt (in Lithuanian). 26 September 2021.
  4. ^ "Netikėtai į „Neptūną" patekęs gynėjas naudojasi visomis progomis – net į mačą atvykus trečiajame kėlinyje". basketnews.lt (in Lithuanian). 8 November 2021.
  5. ^ "Iššovusiam „Neptūno" jaunuoliui – trenerio pagyros: „Įrodinėja savo vertę"". basketnews.lt (in Lithuanian). 26 September 2021.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment - Need more independent reliable sources. This article has improvement opportunities VincentGod11 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Where's Everybody

Where's Everybody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

No references, unnotable. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 10:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Lee Jung-jae

List of awards and nominations received by Lee Jung-jae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

per WP:TOOSOON, I don't know if it meets the criteria, this article can be read at the main page easily before, I do not see if it needs to be split for another article. Ctrlwiki • 00:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep but cleanup. The first half of the table is unsourced (prior to 2010), and there's a few non-notable awards (no wiki article) that should be removed. However, the article seems to meet the requirements of splitting the main article due to size. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Daraz

Daraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  1. Daily Star
  2. Daily Star
  3. Financial Express
  4. The Himalayan Times
  5. Daily FT
  6. Daily Star
  7. Daily FT
  8. Profit Pakistan Today
  9. Nepali Times
  10. Financial Express
  11. Dhaka Tribune
  12. US News
  13. Daily Star
  14. Dhaka Tribune

Mommmyy (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

    • Response Please read WP:NCORP. Not a single one of those references meet the NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Please especially pay attention to the WP:ORGIND section and "Independent Content". HighKing++ 20:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment @HighKing: I have found a multitude of sources online and am ready to expand the article, but an interesting thing I've noticed is that this article seems to be about Daraz Group, the company, whereas a lot of sources are about their e-commerce platform. How should one go about expanding the article (changing the focus entirely, renaming this one and making a separate article about the platform, etc)? RealKnockout (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi RealKnockOut, you've identified the real issue here - while the topic company doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria, there's a good chance that the platform has enough in-depth sources to meet the criteria for notability. I suggest you change and rename the current article (or perhaps request that it is moved to Drafts to allow you time to work on it). I would support this action and I'm sure an admin would too. HighKing++ 20:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not often on this AfD forum and somewhat refreshing to see that the nominator and the contributing editor seem to have resolved things themselves here. It appears there is no need any further for me to vote 'Keep' or 'Delete' the article here? Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like some additional input, the comments are not strong in either direction
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Draftify to allow RealKnockout to work on shifting the focus of the article to the platform instead of the company. I found some sources that don't entirely rely on Daraz or their personnel for info: [2], [3], [4]. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9] are independent as they are news. Troyol (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Malamatinas

Dennis Malamatinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable businessman. I'm unable to find coverage which demonstrates that WP:BIO is met. SmartSE (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Only the expected references in the media, or listings, because of his position in some companies. (I also searched his name in Greek, Ντένης Μαλαματίνας.) ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete can't find in-depth articles about him. MartinWilder (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep We should try to dig in more information as the age of the person signifies that there might be many sources not available online. It might have been published before the internet era. Secondly his presence in 'The Guardian' and 'Wall Street Journal' shows that he holds notability as per Gpedia WP:BASIC. His contribution to the field of business is remarkable. We should contribute to improve the scale of the page for c Class.Social Megatron (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Socialmegatron (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable and independent sources or claim of notability in the article. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)e
  • Keep. CEO of an extremely significant company. This should lead to the liklihood that it will be possible to find adequate sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Saša Ciani

Saša Ciani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Bounced from mainspace to draft, where it was declined at AfC, then moved back to mainspace. Onel5969 TT me 11:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete Unable to find enough sources for him to pass WP:GNG. Did find a few from August 2021, like these two [10][11], but that is not sustained coverage. He does seem to have some promise and might gain coverage in the future but at this point it is a bit WP:TOOSOON. Alvaldi (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I also wouldn't mind if the article would be Draftified. Alvaldi (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of Major League Baseball and Nippon Professional Baseball

Comparison of Major League Baseball and Nippon Professional Baseball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

To me, this falls more along the lines of WP:NOTESSAY, just listing certain aspects of Nippon Professional Baseball that are different than that of Major League Baseball, as opposed to a flat-out comparison between the two, which even if it was, I don’t would be necessary. Why chose only MLB to compare NPB to? Why not the KBO League? Or Chinese Professional Baseball League? The are seemingly endless differences you could find between leagues. This was created with content from the NPB page, so anything worth including is probably best suited there. Penale52 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A reasonable point. As the creator of this article, I moved content from the Nippon Professional Baseball to something new, as having this section as part of the NPB article seemed a bit of a US-centric view i.e. that Major League Baseball is the default. If it was to be re-merged into the NPB article, it would seem balanced to also have an equivalent section in the MLB article. Or perhaps a more suitable article would be one comparing all the different types of baseball in one place? Cripesohblimey (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd say that the Professional baseball article is pretty slim at the moment and probably the best place to compare the style of baseball played in the different countries. Spanneraol (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge: Sourced and written in good faith, much of the material is probably salvageable, but the choices of league seem arbitrary -- if anything it probably creates more US-centricism to have an article expressly choosing the US league to compare to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Not sure if the information would be best served in the international baseball article, this seems to have enough substance to have an article on its own. The first half could use more citations, but the second half has more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks to be a reasonable article, well-reffed enough, important enough subject. As the project moves forward thru the years we need to be expecting new material like this coming in and not be too resistant... It's not really an essay. There's nothing about "Oh well the pace and attitude is different in Japan" or whatever (altho that could be added if ref'd). It is synthesis, but then many of our articles are, and it's functional and appropriate synthesis. As to OPs point "Why chose only MLB to compare NPB to? Why not the KBO League? Or Chinese Professional Baseball League? The are seemingly endless differences you could find between leagues", well for one things, are those AAAA level, and if so (or even not) by all means let's expand the article to include those down the line, maybe, rather than a procrustean chopping. You could say "why have this when we don't have that" about a lot of things.
As to merge, enh, that's a matter of opinion. The creator didn't think it best, and I'm good with that. Article is not perfect... I would consider making a lot of it into a table... I don't know if that'd be an improvement or not. Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete A (well-written) WP:ESSAY. Useful content could be incorporated in the articles for the leagues. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject is well-sourced enough to meet the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 04:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. Now, if the differences between MLB and NPB baseball were something that was written about in reliable sources, then I could see an article here. As it stands, though, this looks like it's pretty much original research via synthesis, and should probably be deleted. (I can't access the NYT source, so I don't know about that one.) (Unrelated but I really need to work on my run-on sentences, wow) casualdejekyll (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Newcastle United Independent Supporters Association

Newcastle United Independent Supporters Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

No evidence of notability. Article fails WP:GNG. We can’t have articles on all supporters groups in the world, and this one does not seem more notable than others. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Holger Mühlbauer

Holger Mühlbauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

No evidence of notability. Sources aren't independent (press releases, publisher or employer, ...), and looking for other sources only gives e.g. pieces where he is quoted[12] (a quote taken directly from the press release it seems, compare with this) or mentioned in passing[13]. Some of the sources one can find are for a namesake, a painter and graphic artist. In any case, neither regular Google[14] nor Google News[15] provide any independent sources about the subject, so he fails WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Misrepresentation of existing sources. ssoar.info is independent. Beuth is independent. Horizont Magazine is a regular magazine. There are also published books. KittenKlub (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Beuth is his publisher; that is not independent info. Ssoar published a text by him, and includes a short biography (as publishers often do). Again, not independent. Publishers giving a biography of someone they published... Horizont is the only decent source (for notability) here. Fram (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Keep. Did we do a WP:BEFORE on specific industry journals? I think the article does him some disservice by calling him a technical writer which he might be, but, he seems to be a domain expert as it pertains to technology standards based on the work for International Standards Organisation and also as the managing director of TeleTrusT. Gerda Arendt had earlier shared a few links, some of which do seem relevant. [16] [17] and [18]. Might be worth searching more along these lines. Not a straightforward delete for sure. Might be worth keeping. Ktin (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Also, I see some good presence (with decent numbers of cites) on Google Scholar  – Link here Ktin (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the link, but I see nothing which comes close to the WP:NPROF criteria. Perhaps I missed some highly cited publication or so? Fram (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm confused. Yesterday, Gerda Arendt came to your user talk page[19] and posted there the links you repeat above, and thanks you for "your help with the ISO person". I can't find where you previously edited the article or the AfD, so I have no idea what "help" that would be? It all looks a lot like Gerda Arendt going around to one of her friends to rally support for this article, which would be canvassing / votestacking, but perhaps there is a better explanation and I missed something here? Fram (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    I went to Ktin for three reasons: thanking me for an edit on my user talk per ping, adding a ref and removing the pro-deletion template. (We also worked on other articles together.) Quite the opposite of what you think, I archived all Mühlbauer-related talk from my well-watched talk. It was your new template, Fram, which brought the topic back to my talk. If people arrive here, they will have seen it on my talk where I didn't comment but left it. I tried to not even take part in this discussion but your comment hurt me enough to break my intention. I know too little about what it takes to be notable for en-WP but can tell you that he is notable for my standards just by the position he holds, and I will write about Helmut Reimer (his predecessor, who was also one of the teachers of Angela Merkel so will have better chances) regardless of how this ends. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    Those edits were by Kittenklub, not Ktin[20]. I presume they're not the same person. It was your out-of-the-blue comment at Ktin's user talk page that brought them here. Fram (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry. I notice only now that I confused the two user names, nervous as I was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hey folks, I am coming up to speed on this thread. Fram can you please explain the relevance of your question to this AfD other than to potentially side track this conversation?
    Specifically, if you are accusing an editor of WP:CANVAS, look no further than the very first line of the passage In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. So, I do not see any issues with the invoke. It was very much on-platform. Please focus on the discussion. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    People who are canvassed rarely see any issue with them being canvassed. That Gerda Arendt can't even acknowledge the errors in her attempted rebuttal of my statement is clear enough. Fram (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    While I am not interested in your second sentence, your first sentence is an ad-hominem attack on me and my abilities. I would encourage you to refrain from doing so. Ktin (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • keep As said before, I believe this person is notable, perhaps not per WP formality, but by being a voice in international standardization, and asked to comment by papers such as Wirtschaftswoche (article) and Computerwoche, in his national leading function. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete does not appear to meet academic notability, and there isn't independent sourcing available. Even the !keep above alludes to the issue of not actually meeting notability, but I'm also unable to identify any other sourcing that would work for GNG. Star Mississippi 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    I don't understand because he is no academic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    he's not well cited enough for that to work, regardless of whether he's an academic. Without his works well cited enough or coverage, I do not see how he is notable per our standards. Star Mississippi 19:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    His "work" is being head of the German competence centre for IT security, which is in an international network, working internationally, if you ask me, also being instrumental in ISO international standards. What I see is that it's easier for a beauty queen to be acceptable than a person who shapes international standards. Always learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    You're an established editor just as I am, we're both entitled to our opinions on notability and since they're opinions, neither one of us is "right". Agree to disagree, but I'm not sure what beauty queens have to do with this as that's not an area I edit. Star Mississippi 19:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Perceptions of the United States sanctions

Perceptions of the United States sanctions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Delete. This article is a WP:SYNTH WP:COATRACK that overlaps with United States sanctions, Effectiveness of economic sanctions, Sanctions against Iraq and perhaps several other topics but bounces around all over the place without a single source that discusses (or even defines) the ostensible topic. While AfD is not clean-up, it is notable that the creator relies almost exclusively (in descending order of credibility) on linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky, the libertarian Cato Institute think tank, and Max Blumenthal (editor of the WP:FRINGE deprecated source The Grayzone) as the main sources for the article (with lengthy blockquotes and close paraphrasing to boot); it is unclear how a neutral search procedure would have generated those three sources as essential to understanding economic sanctions. To be fair, the lede is an acceptable overview of United States sanctions and perhaps should be merged if it contains any non-duplicative content, but after that Perceptions of the United States sanctions devolves into a barely-coherent mess: The Double standards section confusingly lists Iraq and Libya without explaining or defining the "double standards" in question (while tediously reproducing debunked disinformation dubbed "a spectacular lie" by The Washington Post regarding the humanitarian effects of Sanctions against Iraq); the Protecting Israel section (with Chomsky as the sole source) appears to be condemning the lack of U.S. sanctions against Israel ("still there was no call for any sanctions against Israel or even a call for a reduction in unconditional military and economic aid to Israel"); and the Economic engagement as an alternative to sanctions section (based largely on CATO) is... interesting, but totally disconnected from the rest of the article. To be honest, I was initially expecting something akin to Public opinion on United States sanctions, which may or may not have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article, but "Perceptions of the United States sanctions" is a glorified user essay critiquing U.S. foreign policy in a subjective, WP:POV fashion, with a primary (but by no means exclusive) focus on sanctions. It's not really a distinct topic for an article. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The article released yesterday, so it would take me some time to improve it. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  •  Comment: This page does not really qualify for TNT but I think it would largely benefit from having a significant edit through to see if the page can be made into something encyclopedic. The topic is itself notable with there being numerous protests against US Sanctions and even there have even been 29 consecutive nearly unanimous UN Resolution related to the United States' embargo of Cuba.[1] This page could exist but in a different form than the way it currently exists. I will go through and see what I can do. TartarTorte 14:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree that Public opinion on United States sanctions or International opinion on United States sanctions may be a notable topic, but that's plainly not what this article is about. Narrowing the scope to that topic would, in fact, effectively require WP:TNT or deletion to remove the cobbled-together WP:SYNTH.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you TartarTorte. I have already rearranged sections to what I think is more reasonable. But as you wrote above it should be written in an encyclopedic manner.Ghazaalch (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "UN General Assembly calls for US to end Cuba embargo for 29th consecutive year". UN News. 23 June 2021. Retrieved 14 January 2022.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Caffeine (data page)

Caffeine (data page) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
AfDs for this article:
Butadiene (data page) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Butadiene added -DePiep 12:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Struck by me as a procedural objection. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Page is subordinate to Caffeine. Containted a fullblown infobox {{Chembox}} only, which I recently merged into the parent article (nonredundant data only): [21] here. After this, removed superfluous data from this article (=all data) and tagged WP:A3/empty. The speedy was contested by [wrong username] Boghog for reasons not fully clear or convincing to me. I claim that this data page article had no reason to exist because all data can gently be included in the parent article, obviously, and there is nor was a reason to apply WP:SPLIT (in other words: this is a reversed split operation). DePiep (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Correction, username mistake: it was Boghog (in this talk) who contested the second speedy (my mistake, my apologies to both). Argumentation unghanged. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: As background, {{chembox}} was added to caffeine in December of 2005. This large chemical infobox was split out as a data page in September 2011, because this large chembox was messing up the layout (see this and this discussion). The material from this data page was then merged on 11 January 2022 back into Caffeine#Chemical_data. Boghog (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep The parent article already has a large {{drugbox}} and adding a second large {{chembox}} starts to overwhelm the article. The single {{chembox}} in this data page is cleaner and less cluttered than the four infoboxes that currently exist in Caffeine#Chemical_data section. In addition, there is a convenient and logical link from the bottom of {{drugbox}} to this data page. The criteria for WP:WHENSPLIT are (1) specific material within one section becomes too large or (2) the material is out of scope. Both apply to Caffeine#Chemical_data (the material is both too verbose and detailed for a general article about caffeine). Hence the split that was made in 2011 should be maintained. We need a better long term solution, probably involving Wikidata, but until such a solution is in place, it is better to leave in place the split that was done back in 2011. Boghog (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    here Boghog is adding a link to the 100% redundant data page, I reverted, and here they are editwarring to make a WP:POINT without improving WP. -DePiep (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I directly refer to the link in my keep arguments above. Please keep this link in place until the AFD discussion has reached a consensus. Boghog (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Editing an article to illustrate your discussion point is disruptive. Mainspace is not for arguing, not for "illustrating". -DePiep (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    The link is part of the AFD discussion. That is why I reverted to Status quo ante bellum. Removing the link is disruptive. Boghog (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Boghog: re "starts to overwhelm": well, this data is 4kB of the 183kB (2%) [22]. Moving data to the datapage would still leave a huge article. So instead, we could note that all the chemical information is giving good reason for a (content) split, as has been noted here, by creating Caffeine (chemical). (possible outcome of this AfD).
re "cluttered ... in Caffeine#Chemical_data section": I see a nice table gallery with four topical tables. Floating gently in mobile view even, aka responsiveness. A convenient gallery or overview is what I expect for a data sheet. Maybe we could consider things like: add topics/tableheaders to the TOC; but only as an improvement not a prerequisite.
re "four infoboxes": Yes these four data tables are (stripped down) infoboxes. Not ideal, but coming from formal WP:infobox (IB), {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} have scope creep in many ways: having data not present in article body, prominent external link list, multiple IBs in one article, non-IB usage: all accepted AFAIK because it improves the article in favor of wikilawyering into emptyness. Sure this can be improved—as a redesign of the IB, not by an incidental removal of an IB.
re "the single infobox in this data page ..": The bulky list is not an improvement compared to the four dedicated, well-titled tables in Caffeine. On top of this: just a standalone infobox as an article? Inacceptable, especially when knowing that there is an alternative.
In general: from this, I do not get which data sheet presentation you Boghog would prefer or find acceptable. Or, more to the point, which data presentation issues are deleting-cause for you? -DePiep (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep or re-arrange to have a separate Caffeine (chemical) article (where Caffeine remains as the more bio-chem focus) if there is lots of non-biochem chem to say. A multicolumn/fragmented infobox at Caffeine#Chemical data is non-standard compared to other chemical infoboxes, jarring/difficult for reader to find this info especially buried at the end of the article. Boghog is certainly welcome to contest a reverse-split and it's standard (as well as polite) that one doesn't hide or delete content subject to afd while the afd is running. And doing this merge (into a separate section of the main article) without prior current discussion is against consensus of previous discussions cited by Boghog. DMacks (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Non-biochemical topics (demonstrating there really is potential for non-biochem expansion...no time to write content into the main article right now):
    DMacks (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    ... but what I do not understand: how or why would such a gracious content split from article Caffeine need a Caffeine (data page) article to exist at any moment (before/during/after split operation)? That split is from parent article, all data page info is redundant: data page deletion does not hinder content split. The essence of WP:SPLIT-revert is also: when a data page is merited as a fullblown standalone article, it can always be (re)created. (WP:SPLIT makes clear that when size of data is capsizing the article, split out data is to be considered— see for example Properties of water <-> Water (data page)). For Caffeine data this is not the case. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    Could you pay a another visit to this question, DMacks? -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see any new topic to address or further comment for me to make here. DMacks (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    My question was, DMacks, how keeping/having this data page relates to your idea to create "Caffeine (chemical)". Even a move does not seem helpful for this; and, of course, such a future move would cause the same issue again (keep-to-move-later IMO not a good workable AfD outcome). But alas. -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I see. To clarify in technical terms, I'd move (data page) to (chemical), with no redirect, and move some chemical content from the current article to the (chemical) article. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, clarified. -DePiep (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep or better, revert to earlier situation. Keep these datapages when there is sufficient data available (which, for Caffeine and many others, is easily met). We created these datapages because of the datacreep in articles, and now we revert it for no reason. Most of the data that is there is (generally) easily sourced, and where the articles are stubby in nature mark them as such so they can be expanded. Only delete if there is no significant expansion possible, and only delete data if it cannot be sourced. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    There is a lot of physical chemistry data involved with making caffeine-containing beverages. A lot of that is depending on solubility data in e.g. water at a range of temperatures. Having a graph of solubility IN the main article is however total overkill, but a table and graph of the data in a datapage is certainly warranted. A sentence in the main page that states that you make tea at 95degC (or whatever temperature) then can refer to that table/graph. Same for coffee. Similar goes for spectroscopic data, steam extraction data, solubilities in ethanol/water mixtures, scCO2 (decaf), ethyl acetate (also decaf). Such raw data is not suitable for the article (bloating), but can help to explain or support. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
About discussion flow. Here Beetstra WP:refunds page Butadiene (data page) into mainspace. For this Beetstra had to use their admin rights (instead of asking for a WP:REFUND i.e. have another editor checking), manually (intentionally) removing the relevant tag, and while explicity acknowledging relevance for this AfD, leaving it to other(s) to list it here (see es). This is making a WP:POINT in mainspace (is why I write more extensive here). More obvious solution is: if that redundant page should be visible for XfD, it be in Draft space. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: I see you use "these datapages" (plural), Beetstra, but by now it is established that we are discussing a single article here. -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. I especially like DMacks' idea of having two caffeine articles, one for the drug aspects and the other for the strictly chemical aspects, with this data in the latter. I feel like there is no perfect solution here, and I can appreciate how having a data page consisting mainly of an infobox is a little odd, but I do not believe that deletion is the solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Tryptofish: thanks for this contribution. Allow me to note: "keep or merge" is what this afd is about ;-). Personally I can support the chemical-split too; also I'd like to read why you think deletion of that "odd" article is not needed. -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    My thinking is that there is no good reason to remove the information from our content, and the effect of merging/rearranging the data page content into a "chemical" page would naturally make the "data" page no longer needed; I suppose that would amount to an included deletion, but by convention, we regard a merging process as distinct from deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Transient inclusion of butadiene data-page, no discussion of its merits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose butadiene as out-of-process. It was inserted into this AFD a day later, after substantial discussion that was only with caffeine in the nom, and discussion that has substantial focus on aspects that are specific to caffeine and/or different from butadiene. DePiep, this is the second time and way you are acting in ways that are potentially disruptive. Please stop. DMacks (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Fine with me, while noting that I acted by GF advice in es. Do not understand "second time" suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Procedural note: I withdraw article Butadiene (data page) I added late. AfD is about Caffeine (data page) solely. Sorry for the confusion caused. (I expect an admin will remove afd-tag from the artice; any action required by me?). -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Because you, the nominator, have withdrawn it, and nobody commented in favor of deletion, it is not necessary for an admin to act on it, so I removed the afd tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose butadiene per DMacks. I have boldly struck the out-of-process addition, and I repeat the caution against continuation of the disruptive conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: it is an article. As such, irrespective of its perceived history, motivation, intention (i.e., backgrounds invisible to the Reader of the encyclopedia), it must stand as an articleby itself full stop. The introductionary WP:What is an article? mentions: notable, summarizes comprehensively, encyclopedic style of language, well copyedited, references to RS, has wikilinks in/out (all 6 bullets, my cutout). Understandably a data page does not have the usual longer verbose, but that is not essential (ie, no elaborate body texts is not an issue). However. The article is an infobox only, plainly duplicates information already present elsewhere, does not reach the WP:stub bar from below. The article does not present itself as urgently needed in the encylopedia. It lacks substance. Being an AfD, this approach should be considered too. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    Before those criteria, there is 'A Gpedia article or entry is a page on this site that has encyclopedic information on it. A well-written encyclopedia article:'. This is a page with encyclopedic information on it. I can agree that it is not very well written (I would even say badly written), but that does not mean that it does not have merit. Many stub articles contain encyclopedic information, but lack on all of those points you mention. We do not delete them all, we try to improve them.
    Note: that the article now plainly duplicates information already present[ed] elsewhere is because you went against the earlier consensus of splitting out the information and have merged it back into the main article. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    Of course the article has encyclopedic information. But that is not enough. The criteria mentioned are an and-list: an article must have some qualities in those too. Anyway, if you think this data page can be improved into a viable article, there is the royal route: start from data as in parent article, and apply WP:SPLIT if and when when actual data quantity merits a separation. Before this, development can take place in Draft:Caffeine (data page) (possible outcome of this AfD). OTOH, creating a separate article (data page or anything else) is not an free option ("we've chosen it so the article is OK"), it must be based on guidelines and article-worthyness. For "future worthyness" of an article: then (re)create that article if and when that happens: in that future. (For our information: candidate data in Caffeine page is only 4kB of the 183kB [23]). Today, it is not an article. -DePiep (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Meh, I think above this royal route is rather discouraged as it would go against the consensus (which you have not shown that it has changed). We do not place all our stubs in draft, we happily accomodate them in mainspace. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Beetstra: Why are you, again, replying this dismissive and downgrading to my post? How do you expect me to reply? In kind? -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    Of course, AfD exists to establish (new) consensus. "Some editors like it this way" is not a sound article motivation. Anyway, I am explicitly invoking guidelines and policies like WP:Article size, WP:SPINOUT, WP:MERGE, WP:NOTABLE, WP:SPLIT, WP:NOTABLE, not personal preference (that is: I do believe and support that these guidelines & approaches improve the encyclopedia in this topic). I have not read anywhere these WP:guidelines, policies & thoughts something that urges or even only invites us to (a) keep an immature substandard article, nor (b) split 2% of info out of an article into an incomplete article. -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please discuss the proposal of moving chemical information into this page and retitling it Caffeine (chemical).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Traiteur (disambiguation)

Traiteur (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Two-item disambiguation page that has a primary topic. Per WP:ONEOTHER. 162 etc. (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • On the one hand, I don't particularly care too much whatever the outcome. But I'm not sure there is a clear primary topic between these two. Certainly in non-American contexts, the French catering sense would likely be primary. There are several dozen links to the culinary sense while there were only five to the Cajun healer, one of which was erroneous and meant for the culinary sense. olderwiser 18:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:1OTHERPRIMARY and looking at page-view numbers, the numbers are almost 2-to-1 for 2021 for pageviews of Traiteur versus Traiteur (culinary profession). The disambiguation page itself is also essentially unused as Traiteur takes you to the article on Cajun healers, whereas you would have to explicitly go to Traiteur (disambiguation) to even get to this page. Looking at incoming links, there's one in article space and it's coming from Traitor (disambiguation). I think it could be worthwhile to move both of these articles over to Traitor (disambiguation) if this page is deleted, but not necessary. TartarTorte 19:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Rename Traiteur Traiteur (faith healer) and move the dab page to just Traiteur. There doesn't appear to be a clear-cut primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Rename per above. The faith healer is a bit more popular as an article, but not by a wide enough margin to be a primary topic (the ratio between the views is 5:3 [24]). Add the wider relevance of the culinary meaning (for example, that's the only one listed in the OED)... – Uanfala (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Cape Air Flight 2072

Cape Air Flight 2072 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

No evidence of long-term significance, does not appear to meet WP:EVENT. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Association of Booksellers for Children

Association of Booksellers for Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Article has been tagged as needing more references since 2007. I have added one reference but cannot find more and think this is a non-notable organisation. Tacyarg (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Anastasia Michaelsdotter

Anastasia Michaelsdotter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

I'm not sure if this person passes WP:GNG, so I thought I'd bring it to discussion.

I can't find many reliable sources that mention her (Anastasia Michaelsdotter or Stasia Michael) that aren't just interviews or quotes from her, and all of the sources in the article seem like passing mentions or non-independent. The lead also mentions she was featured in a documentary, but if the majority of sources are anything to go by, it could just mean she was mentioned in it.

The original version of the article has 2 sources that may be reliable and/or significant, but they are written around the same time (early 2015), so I'm not sure if that indicates lasting notability (or if it's enough).[25][26]

Her article has also been deleted on the Swedish Gpedia 4 times for "relevance" (not sure if that's similar to English Gpedia's notability standard), and this English article was created a month after the first deletion. - Whisperjanes (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Edward Asare

Edward Asare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

BLP of a Ghanaian blogger and influencer, previously speedy deleted under A7 and G11, recreated now but still lacking in anything suggesting notability. Sourced to promotional pieces of churnalism. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Edward is a notable person in Ghana and well recognized and respected for his work and impact.Ruby D-Brown (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: All references provided tells a good story about him lets keep. Jwale2 (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Gurdev Sharma Debi

Gurdev Sharma Debi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Non notable politician. Claims to have been elected to the Legislative Assembly from the Ludhiana Central Assembly Constituency though no references for the same exist. The correct representative as rightly mentioned in the constituency page is Surinder Kumar Dawar (Source : [27]) with Dabi coming second. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Probable promotion page with the elections drawing near Jupitus Smart 08:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Gary S. Usrey

Gary S. Usrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO no WP:INDEPTH coverage. One interview is not enough Shrike (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A1 x J1

A1 x J1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Doing a Google search yields very limited coverage and the sources in the article currently are just from official charts, no independent coverage. Andise1 (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. An act with a number 2 hit in the main chart of an important music market, and a featured appearance on a further top 5 hit, is overwhelmingly likely to be notable. That they have not been Elgarised by the post-Blair/Cameron "new establishment" does not mean we should not cover them just as much as we cover Elgarised rock. For a significant audience, they are very notable indeed, and we cannot discount and dismiss that audience. RobinCarmody (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Week delete per nom, this seems to be WP:TOOSOON. -Xclusivzik (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Two charting singles, one of which hit #2 and charted in four countries, and a platinum certification. Easily passes WP:NMUSIC. Mlb96 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The Rain Goddess

The Rain Goddess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This article fails WP:GNG. The sources provided include one partial review in a compilation of a review of the genre that is Rhodesian military pulp fiction. Everything else is either sales pages, blogs, or doesn't actually mention the book. Searching for the book and author's name in my WP:BEFORE turned up nothing new. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

T. G. Sangram Singh

T. G. Sangram Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Doubtful notability, most coverage seems to be related to the stamp paper scam, and the article seems to be devoted to countering that. It actually seems to come close to G11. It is largely unsourced. It is also full of irrelevant information, like details about some film that he apparently liked and how often he watched it, and details on the children of his adopted daughter. To say that it would need a rewrite would be quite accurate, and that's assuming that the subject is even notable. Anyway, I am calling for WP:TNT regardless of notability, to ensure that the current version cannot just be reverted back to. Mako001 (C)  (T)  07:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Anne Hamburger

Anne Hamburger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

The subject fail GNG for not having significant coverage of independent, reliable sources. Cassiopeia talk 05:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep This isn't true there are many sources this article just hasn't been properly developed. Here are a few that could be used. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KNY22 (talkcontribs) 17:54, January 22, 2022 (UTC)

Comment [28], [29] and [30] are not reliable sources. [31] is a broken link. [32] is a paywall article and needs to get info rom RX prior comment (Received article from RX) - it is an interview piece for such it is not an independent sources. Cassiopeia talk 07:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I've rewritten the article and would give significant coverage in Forbes and LA Times as the two best sources now on the page. There are also paywalled articles in NYT 1, 2, 3 and WP if someone has access and wants to take a look. Mujinga (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

:Comment: Latinmes and Forbes sources are interview piece for such they are not independent source and thus not meet notability guidelines as for New York time is a paywall source, cant access to comment.

I added in the NYT and WaPo stories, both of which cover her in depth. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article now clearly demonstrates notability, and I am distressed that the nominator did not do a simple google search to find the mountain of coverage for this person over the past 35 years. This person has had an extraordinary career and really deserves a much better article. -- Ssilvers (