Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:MFD)
If you think a page should be deleted, read the deletion policy to make sure.
Then follow these instructions on how to request a page for deletion. To find more information on what discussed deletions and quick deletions are:
PLEASE READ THIS

Before nominating: checks and alternatives Edit

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:

A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines
  1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion.
  2. The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
  3. Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines
B. Carry out these checks
  1. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for quick deletion.
  2. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)
  3. Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
  4. Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
  5. Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  6. Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede.
C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
  1. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for RfD.
  2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
  3. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to fix it.
  4. If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.
D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
  1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
  2. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an RfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an RfD nomination may still be appropriate.
  3. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}.

Discussed deletionEdit

Put the deletion tag on the article.
  1. Click "Change source" at the top of the page to be deleted.
  2. In the edit box, add this tag: {{rfd|REASON}}. Put it at the top of the page, above the rest of the text. Then, replace the text "REASON" with a short reason why the page should be deleted. Do not be too specific here. You can add more details on the discussion page (see below).
    • It is a good idea to write a change summary to let others know what you are doing. You can say "nominating for deletion", "requesting deletion", or something like that.
  3. Click "Save changes" at the bottom to save the page with the deletion tag at the top.
    • You can also check the "Watch this page" check box to add the page to your watchlist. This lets you know if the page for deletion has been changed. If the deletion tag is removed any time before the discussion is closed, it should be put back.
Create a discussion page.
  1. If the deletion tag has been added to the page, a box should appear at the top of the article with a link saying "Click here to create a discussion page!" Click that link.
  2. You should be taken to a page starting with "Creating Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/..." along with the current year and the name of the article to be deleted. In the edit box, the following tag should have already been added: {{RfD/Preload/Template}} . Replace the text PLACE REASON HERE with a more detailed reason why the page should be deleted.
    • It is helpful to include links to the various policy pages about Wikipedia (that begin with Wikipedia:). Here are some examples of this: "This article is [[Wikipedia:COMPLEX|not easy to understand]]" or "Not a [[Wikipedia:notable|notable]] topic''. This will make others more aware of why the page is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies.
  3. Click "Save changes" to save the new discussion page when you are done.
    • A change summary you can write for this page is "creating discussion page", "starting deletion discussion", or something like that.
    • As with the page for deletion, you can check the "Watch the page" box. This will let you know if someone else has replied to your discussion.
List it here
  1. Copy the title of the discussion page to the clipboard. You can do this by dragging the mouse over the text from "Wikipedia" to the end of the page title to highlight it, then right-clicking and selecting "Copy".
  2. Go to the list of deletion requests, and click "change source" beside the words "Current deletion request discussions".
  3. At the top of the list of discussions, paste the title from the clipboard (right-click and select "Paste"). Add a pair of curly brackets before and after the title to make a template that will copy the content of the discussion page onto the main deletion page, like this:
    {{Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/(name of page to be deleted)}}
  4. Finally, click "Save changes" to add the discussion to the list. If the page saves successfully, you should see your deletion discussion at the top of the list. And that's it!

Quick deletionEdit

If you think a page has nonsense content, add {{non}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page does not say why the subject is important, add {{notable}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page should be deleted per other quick deletion rules, add {{QD|reason}} to the top of the page.

Notifying the userEdit

Generally, you should try to be civil and tell the user that created the page to join the discussion talking about the page. This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|page to be deleted}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage.

DiscussionsEdit

  • The discussion is not a vote. Please make suggestions on what action to take, and support your suggestion with reasons.
  • Please look at the article before you make a suggestion. Do not make an opinion using only the information given by the nominator. Looking at the history of the article may help to understand the situation.
  • Please read other comments and suggestions. They may have helpful information.
  • Start your comments or suggestions on a new line. Start with * and sign after your comment by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs and make sure your comment is indented (using more than one *).
  • New users can make suggestions, but their ideas may not be considered, especially if the suggestion seems to be made in bad faith. The opinion of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance.
  • Suggestions by users using "sock puppets" (more than one account belonging to the same person) and IP addresses will not be counted.
  • Please make only one suggestion. If you change your mind, change your first idea instead of adding a new one. The best way to do this is to put <s> before your old idea and </s> after it. For example, if you wanted to delete an article but now think it should be kept, you could put: "Delete Quick keep".
  • If you would like an article to be kept, you can improve the article and try to fix the problems given in the request for deletion. If the reasons given in the nomination are fixed by changing, the nomination can be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an administrator.
  • Try to avoid confusing suggestions, such as delete and merge.

Remember: You do not have to make a suggestion for every nomination. You should think about not making a suggestion if:

  1. A nomination involves a topic that you do not know much about.
  2. Everyone has made the same suggestion and you agree with that suggestion.
  • All times are in UTC.

Current deletion request discussionsEdit

Dylan VanasEdit

Dylan Vanas (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Social media personality/ "digital entrepenur", likely non-notable, and originally nominated as A4- Notability for quick deletion. As we get a few sources, which might just show notability, I'd prefer a discussed deletion. Note: google search results shows mostly social media (on the first page), nothing I would consider a reliable source. So: delete? Eptalon (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete - non-notable entrepreneur with lack of good sources. Most of the references talk about his marketing advice, and don't focus on him. The Jerusalem Post article is marked as "Special Content" and reads very promotional, so it doesn't seem reliable even though it comes from a reputable newspaper. Aranya (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: non-notable entrepreneur. No good sources = no article. SHB2000 (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 15:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Sean Ryan FoxEdit

Sean Ryan Fox (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

SHB2000 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This article was started by someone who was evading their global lock + their local block too. SHB2000 (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

CU blocked and now globally locked. SHB2000 (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 23:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The Plankton and Karen ShowEdit

The Plankton and Karen Show (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Darkfrog24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: A cursory search indicates that no such show exists. There is no IMDB entry and Google provides no results. There are characters on the show Spongebob called Plankton and Karen, but they do not appear to have their own spinoff TV show, as in this article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Quick Delete as hoax/spam/advertising, as the only entry I could find for this was this free "novel" [1]. While the characters Plankton and Karen are notable in Spongebob Squarepants on EN Wiki, I am not convinced that Simple English speakers will be interested in them here, let alone in a fan fiction novel about them. Certainly the episodes are false. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 14:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Bukola Sawyerr IzeoguEdit

Bukola Sawyerr Izeogu (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Looks like another PR attempt. The person is likely not notable, and the article fails GNG. BRP ever 10:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete: spam/advertising. SHB2000 (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Quick Delete as spam/advertising. There is quite a bit about her on Google. She has a LinkedIn profile [2] that shows she is a real person, a Wiktia article [3] that shows her interest in Wikipedia, and an article on something called Everybody Wiki [4]. This looks like an attempt at a fourth piece of advertising. The other 3 advertising spaces warrant this kind of article. Simple English Wikipedia is not the place for something like this. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 10:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Ayan (actor)Edit

Ayan (actor) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

DanCherek has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The subject of the article is not important enough for a biography, and the references are all press releases or user-generated content like other wikis. On the English Wikipedia, the article has been spammed so much that it has been salted (protected against recreation by non-administrators). See w:Ayan Nayak, w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayan Nayak, and w:Ayan (actor). DanCherek (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete: cross-wiki spam, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnonymousIndiaz. MER-C (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: I think we first need to assess if Kolkata Harry is notable, as if it is then we need to decide if an actor in a notable film is himself notable. It might be, but he might not. If it is, we then have to establish whether he was actually in it. While EverybodyWiki says that he is in it [5], IMDB doesn't mention him [6] and that suggests that this is a hoax. The Bengali Wiki says he is in it [7] but curiously the Simple Wikipedia article does not. But I think that even if he was really in it, being in 1 notable movie isn't enough to warrant an article. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep All the articles on every site mention Ayan Nayak from the starting deleted by some Wikipedians due to non reliable source er per their comment only actors in the lead roles got featured on news publication website if you have doubt you can watch the movie for cast name and scene for verification. There are many cast who are present but not mentioned on any website as from their name much hype will not be created that doesn't mean you can't give credit on Wikipedia articles just because they are not mentioned on sources and when they actually worked.2409:4060:2E92:D724:B510:32A:7E41:C089 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: x-wiki spam/advertising. SHB2000 (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 14:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Ashish Chanchlani (2nd nomination)Edit

Ashish Chanchlani (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Camouflaged Mirage has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Renominating as previously closed by a non-admin and I don't think the consensus is clear enough for a NAC in this case. I think at RFD will be easier than DRV. This was initially nominated by SHB2000 at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Ashish Chanchlani. There are many awards listed, but does the awards fulfill the criterion on BIO / ACTOR ? Are the awards notable themselves. This seems puff up PR spam and the language isn't that neutral either. Leaving for community to decide again. Note this long long history on enwp Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete: purely promotional, and the English Wikipedia logs don't give a good insight either. According to MER-C, this is apparently x-wiki spam (see Special:Diff/7816614). And thanks for opening this discussion back again. I wasn't too pleased to see that the first nom was closed by a non admin who doesn't even have a userpage and only 289 edits, and for the others reasons given, the reasons like "meets General Notability" aren't too convincing either. SHB2000 (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Note we have List of Youtubers on the English wikipedia, leave alone the wiki-cross spam or anything unrelated to the Deletion Request.--🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    in there you can find Youtubers listed that has fewer viewers and subscribers, but remained and considered as notable. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    That list is mainly for really notable YouTubers, and Ashish Chanchlani is nowhere near topping that list. SHB2000 (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Do note that subs / views doesn't determine notablity, good sources that describe them in detail in multiple independent websites / books does. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    In general, sources that show notability are stuff like scholarly journals, magazines, books, etc. whose titles are not the subject itself but have some information pertaining to the subject. SkeletalDome$ (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep This was kept with 3-0 on a recent RfD and, while I know that this is not a vote, I am not sure that relisting it straight away afterwards is helpful. Mind you, we had a similar case of one that was kept, was relisted a week later and was deleted after an even number of keeps and deletes. I am not sure if this is how the RfD process is meant to work though and would feel a lot more comfortable if we waited a bit before renominating something. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Blissyu2 To be clear, the vote there is 3-1, but on strength of arguments, the nominator said not notable and the 2nd vote of meets GNG doesn't matter much either without giving sources, likewise the 3rd vote. The nominator must had thought why the sources can't meet GNG and saying the sources meet doesn't help, but saying why the sources meet does. The only !vote that counts is yours but then this is the reason why I am quering the validity of the awards meeting BIO / AUTHOR which we can surely discuss here. As of the renomination, there is no rule that things cannot be renominated here immediately after closing, which I did several occasions here before. In addition, I take issue with the NAC. In this close situations where the consensus isn't clear, an admin who is elected to determine consensus should be better placed to evaluate the merits of the arguments than an non-admin. Having said that I won't object if the closer is an experienced non admin, not in this case where the closer is a relatively new user. Even that, if the close did explained why the sources can meet GNG, in the process addressing the nominator concerns, I am also okay. But the close doesn't. This is a problematic close in all grounds, and we can either go to DRV or AFD, but since nothing was deleted in the sense, though DRV can evaluate closes as well, I think per NOT BURO, I listed it here. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep there are multiple points where it is seen that how he is notable:

so not only his subscribers shows his notability, but he is also notable for winning multiple awards apart from this he has secondary indepth coverages on notable news websites as well which are already provided in the article like forbes, India Today etc. Suryabeej   talk 15:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 10:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Rilwanu LukmanEdit

Rilwanu Lukman (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

512 megabytes has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: May not be notable 512 MB (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  • I think he is notable, but most of the page is copied from en. J991 18:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Are you arguing for Keep? Blissyu2 (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Quick Delete . This page deserves a quick deletion as it is mostly copied from the English Wikipedia. SkeletalDome$ (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @SkeletalDome$ why People can't copy edit from Other wikis if the copy is useful, what i mean is you put Quick Deletion and the reason is copyright infringement, since Wikipedia is Free-content why it's considered as copyright infringement?   Thank you 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Because the content was copied from the English Wikipedia. Any article copied or pasted from another source online is considered to be a copyright violation and is subject to quick deletion under criteria G12, and we take such articles very seriously. SkeletalDome$ (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @SkeletalDome$ Wikipedia Resources are free to share under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License and the GFDL, Please Read Terms of use it's free to share to anywhere, then when it comes to copying texts from a part of project itself to another part should it be considered as copyright infringement? 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If you copy the article from another Wikipedia without attribution, then yes its a copyvio. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@つがる-san; when we participate on any project that hosted on Wikimedia, we agreed that our contributions to be published online, that anyone can edit or share

By clicking the "Publish changes" button, you agree to forever release your changes under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GNU Free Documentation License.

🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Sakura emad Yes, but under the License, there is a need to give attribution. Without attribution it's copyvio as the publisher give license to publish the content only if attribution is given. See the link Tsugaru given above. The easiest is to tag on talk page {{translated page}} (this alone is enough to meet the license requirements) or to give a permanent link to the enwp page - which can be done by going to the side bar --> Tools --> Permanent Link on en, and then copy over. Hope this clarifies. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure that that's true. From Wiki to Wiki is very different to from official biography to Wiki. It's already gone through the copyright issues at EN Wiki. We just need to simplify it and we're good. Blissyu2 (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep Clearly a notable subject with articles in EN, Persian, French and Russian. Needs to be simplified. Blissyu2 (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Comment: I did a bit of simplification which should deal with any copyvio issues and there should no longer be any need to consider this for quick deletion. Blissyu2 (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep In fact, speedy keep. Clearly notable as is minister in Nigeria per en:Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges. And attribution issues can be easily solved by what I did on talkpage, we just need to use {{translated page}}. Language seems simple enough. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Weak keep Notable per Camouflaged Mirage, but the copyvio needs to get sorted out and needs to be simplified SHB2000 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      Comment: I'm pretty sure that the copyvio and simplification has been sorted out and we can now assess it on its merits. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Just to be absolutely clear:
  1. Attribution to another wiki for copied text is essential, otherwise it is a copyvio.
  2. The person is absolutely definitely notable: see period of service on OPEC for example. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]


This request is due to close on 17:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Calendar (tool)Edit

Calendar (tool) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Going through the sources, I am unable to verify the notability of this app. There are no significant sources, and the ones that are do not speak of the subject in detail. I think it's better if we discuss this here. Thank you :) BRP ever 09:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  Alexia Ranking According to alexia, The website mainly active on United states and India.--🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  •   Keep I think this is pretty significantly notable, as an app attached to Gmail and Outlook. Might need a bit of a cleanup but seems pretty notable. Blissyu2 (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Blissyu2:, It is not attached to Gmail or outlook. It just lets you connect to them. How does that show notability? There are no reliable sources to show that it meets GNG or any other criteria. And by what I found it has ~10k downloads from playstore, leading me to believe that it's an independent app, without any relation to those.-BRP ever 03:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: no significant sources = no article. SHB2000 (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 09:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


InsydeEdit

Insyde (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Appears to fail GNG. All the sources in the article seem unreliable or promotional. --Ferien (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

Note to admin: Already spammed on en.wp[8] leading to blocking several accounts, SPI case on en.wp. Ramaswar(discuss) 06:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

After reviewing this on the English Wikipedia, it seems this is an irrelevant comment and should be disregarded, as it was around a year ago that that had happened, the comment has no relevance to a discussion on GNG notability. - HungryHighway (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
No, wrong, it is relevant, though to what extent is up to us to decide. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

As the original creator of the page (someone else removed and then replaced it after I originally made it) I do not really have any say in the matter of deletion, but I will say that while a couple of the sources are interviews, that does not 100% discredit it. The subject is the main subject of, and is covered in detail on, several publications that are considered reliable and neutral. - HungryHighway (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  •   Quick Delete all the sources are nothing but paid promotions 23stan (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
In searching online for these, they look legit, nothing about them seems like paid promo, many of them are on well known publications that are widely considered reliable as far as I can tell, and the articles have no sponsor tags, and seem to come from staff writers rather than press releases. I’m still a university student and I’m trying to learn how to tell what sources are and are not paid promotion. HungryHighway (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Is there any reason why the article should be quickly deleted instead of going through the full request for deletion, 23stan? --Ferien (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ferien Yes, the way the article has been written is nothing less then a promotion, rest if you check those references none seems like a reliable source , if we talk about the yahoo news which is the only reference that gives an Impression of him being covered by notable publications and possibly just to divert us (editors) they have provided those two refs in the first "Are not even published by Yahoo, One is published by their partner popdiaries and the other one is by Latestly both of the websites are just some rubbish Indian Paidvertorials rest all the refs are nothing less then a blog lol! so what makes us to discuss on it with all those evidence, also after we exclude the En wiki history of promotional activity about the subject!! 23stan (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Actually, the false claims about having launched the careers of Post Malone and Juice WRLD worry me greatly that this is not only not notable, it's potentially lying. Blissyu2 (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Blissyu2 absolutely a lie lol 23stan (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, that is what I meant. Obviously an attempt has been made for a PR agent to promote this person in return for cash. The spamming on En wiki is evidence of this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Does that ever work? I don't see why they'd bother. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: I'm afraid that I'm not seeing any valid references. The fact that it was deleted on EN Wiki amongst sockpuppet accusations is relevant, as is the fact that it doesn't exist anywhere else, not for lack of trying. His sole claim to notability is that he launched the careers of Post Malone, Juice WRLD and "others" but there are no references to that claim. In order for this to be considered, we'd need that claim to be verified, and at present there is no proof of its truth at all. The rest of the article, even if true, is not notable. Blissyu2 (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: no good sources. SHB2000 (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 06:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue (2nd version)Edit

Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue (2nd version) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Darkfrog24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This looks fake. Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue was a real (albeit ridiculously saccharine) show,[9] but it aired in 1990 and had 1980s cartoon characters in it, not Spongebob Squarepants or Johnny Bravo. A brief internet search did not reveal any evidence of an updated 2005 version with newer characters. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

I would like to tell @23stan, Blissyu2: that this is not only a misnamed article. Its content is also very inaccurate; it names 2000s characters like Spongebob instead of 1980s characters like the Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles. That's like saying "Taylor Swift sang the song" when it was really "Debbie Gibson sang the song." Someone would have to go in and fix all that. (I don't want to do it b/c this show is a bad memory for me.) You do understand that it's not just the title, right? Whoever wrote this article is pretending that it is a sequel to the 1990 show. It's like we have an article called "Star Wars II (movie)" and it says it came out in 2015 and starred Justin Beiber and Rhianna. We wouldn't just say "Ah, rename it Star Wars because en.wiki has an article about Star Wars." Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I am happy to fix the content if the page is kept. It shouldn't take too long to simplify the English version. Blissyu2 (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sounds okay to me, Blissy, so long as you know you must not only simplify but correct all the facts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I would start with the English article and simplify from there, since there are accuracy concerns here. I will wait to see if this is kept first, as I don't want to waste a lot of time on something that is going to be deleted. I have simplified a number of articles already. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 02:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Bus Simulator UltimateEdit

Bus Simulator Ultimate (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

AnApple47 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non Notable, seems to fail the general notability guideline, couldn't find any reliable independent sources. AnApple47 💬 15:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Keep While the state of the article is.... not good, I've managed to dig up some sources. This source from Milliyet and this one from Hürriyet are by far the best ones, this Millî Gazete source also looks fine. Webrazzi source is meh. Still enough to keep though. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - mobile video game that doesn't meet notability guidelines for video games. Through a quick Google search, it seems Turkish websites have put out short entries (including the ones Styyx put above and this one from Memurlar.net [11]) due to the app's high amounts of users and downloads. The problem is, our notability guidelines for video games require sources that provide significant commentary on the game. This means more than than basic game info and announcements on downloads/users that is in these articles. Aranya (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep The article as is should be a delete, but based on what I was able to find on the internet, it looks like it should be kept. It has over 100 million downloads and 1.5 million votes on it, which is ridiculously notable, and it has literally thousands of news sources about it. I think we just need to get our heads together and work out how to write this properly. Blissyu2 (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Blissyu2: a large number of downloads and active users doesn't necessarily mean it's notable. WP:NVIDEOGAMES clearly says we need "subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer." The sources Styyx and I included clearly lack that. You say there are "literally thousands of news sources", but does any of those cover more than basic game features and download statistics? Aranya (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Yes. I counted 11,400 of them. I'm sure we could include a few. Blissyu2 (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Blissyu2: So out of those 11,400, can you post the ones with original thoughts on the game? As I've said before, all the links brought up so far don't work towards meeting WP:NVIDEOGAMES. Aranya (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  Delete:. Article just lists the countries in which the game is played, the versions of the game, and virtually no other content. No reliable sources provided. SkeletalDome$ (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  •   Keep although I agree with SkeletalDome$ but I am more of @Blissyu2:'s side that 100 million downloads does show its notability and also there are few articles available on google so it is a weak keep for me 23stan (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    But as Aranya said downloads don’t make the game notable. There needs to be significant coverage of the game in reliable sources, just like with any other subject here. SkeletalDome$ (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I think that having the most downloads of any games in its genre is more notable than simply a raw number, but now I feel bad for fixing up the article if this one heads to delete anyway. This is why I usually wait until after the vote before doing the fixing. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Comment: They have their own Wiki just for the game. https://bussimulator-ultimate.fandom.com/wiki/Bus_Simulator:_Ultimate_Wiki Blissyu2 (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Comment: As it looks like this is likely to be kept, I went ahead and improved the article. Blissyu2 (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete:. I just don't see significant coverage in major sources to meet GNG. Notability can't just be assumed based on numbers, the article needs sources and/or needs to meet one or multiple criteria of notability here.-BRP ever 11:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 15:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Vivek VermaEdit

Vivek Verma (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

SHB2000 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No indication of how this subject is notable. w:en:Vivek Verma has been deleted and re-created numerous times, so much to the point that it's been salted now. There is a commons category, but that was created over there from a person who only had 12 edits over there. There is also a hiwiki article (w:hi:विवेक वर्मा), but that has also been written by the same author.

So... what makes this subject notable? SHB2000 (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Keep Has a reasonable level of content on IMDB [12] with 11 music credits, 7 composer credits, 6 actor credits, 3 director and 1 writer, which is enough to be notable. Just need to include that link in the article and we're good. Blissyu2 (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: Sources in the article seem promotional and IMDb does not show that someone meets GNG, it's user-generated content and it's not a reliable source. --Ferien (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep Although I agree as per Blissyu2 but I would like to explain in details why the subject meets the notability criteria, apart form having reliable sources which are:
  • That's great! Would you be able to add that to the article? Well done on finding that. Blissyu2 (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Suryabeej: Still, having a Wikidata item does not necessarily mean they're notable. I presume hiwiki and guwiki have lower notability standards than simplewiki. On top of that, just because the sources are reliable, that also does not mean they're notable. SHB2000 (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: cross-wiki spam, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivek.k.Verma. MER-C (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    That includes Surya Beej above, though Surya has not been blocked on EN wiki. 58.179.159.63 (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep source provided clearly satisfy GNG along with the fact that his work are also notable, Although as per MER-C's link provided on EN wiki it is creation protected possibly because back then sources provided weren't available, but now it does meets GNG so as per Suryabeej it is a keep for me 23stan (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Can you please explain where they satisfy GNG? IMDb is not reliable. SHB2000 (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @SHB2000 did you read the explaination provided by @Suryabeej? apart from that the Keep vote from my end is on behalf of the sources which are available not on behalf of IMDB claim, Unlike Insyde, Verma's references are not only on the reliable sources but they claim and prove of him being notable, and the references which are available for Insyde are totally paidvertorials/Puff-pieces, but here in verma's case the references are reliable and are also via proper editorial process (you can check that if you closely read the sources provided, Insyde's is written like an Advertisement and doesn't have a BYLINE which clearly fails to show that the facts which are being told in it has been verified or are coming from a verified source) but if you check lets say This source it shows the authors name and are secondary in-depth source on a publication which is listed as Reliable on EN wikipedia, So all of this are sufficient for me to vote a Keep for verma. 23stan (talk) 23stan (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Just because the sources are reliable, that doesn't mean the subject is notable. SHB2000 (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @SHB2000 well I would suggest you to give a concrete and valid statement in order to prove the fact that he isn't notable, Rather then sounding like a broken record which not even makes sense, consensus aren't made on behalf of statements which doen't oppose a given statement strongly, Also pleasy explain why is this article should be deleted, as you said 'Just because the sources are reliable, that doesn't mean the subject is notable' why do you think he has got those media coverages on reliable sources? obviously because of his work in Bollywood (for that check the article and his work closely), so in order to get this deleted please provide a concrete explaination and if it is sufficient we can opt for a 'Delete' rather than a Keep :) 23stan (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Why I nominated it is in my deletion request. Also your personal attacks such as Rather then sounding like a broken record which not even makes sense, consensus aren't made on behalf of statements which doen't oppose a given statement strongly are not welcome. SHB2000 (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @SHB2000 well you should stop pretending as a victim over here, as it was clearly not an attack on you, consensus are made with discussions, so I would suggest you not to post warnings on user talkpages out of no reason, regards :) 23stan (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    well your nomination is clearly a personal attack behavioural, I have just been explaining what I feel,if it gets deleted too that would be under the community discussuion, so I am just doing my job as an editor! 23stan (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    It's time you stopped and let others have their say. SHB2000 (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. Not yet. I was surprised to see some notable names in discography, but when I looked into the songs I couldn't find any relation. Some sources are notable, but it still doesn't meet GNG or any of our other notablity criteria. A little below the borderline for GNG.-BRP ever 04:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @BRPever, I have a explaination which clearly opposes your statement over here, as i have gone through his work thoroughly,
    • Wafa Ne Bewafayi this song is includes name like Arijit Singh, Himesh Reshammiya, and is released on official channel of T-series(worlds biggest youtube channel) and the song is from a notable movie, you can find his name in the credit, which makes sense of him being notable.
    • Tum Ho Mere which is again from a notable movie called 'Saansien' released on T-series, check Verma's name in the credit as a music Producer, which again makes sense.
    • Teri Meri kahani the song which charted top In India as per Google Trend (as mentioned in the article with a reliable reference) see credits for his name. makes sense for his notability.
    • Main woh Chand with 192 million hits again from a notable movie released on T-series ft. Himesh Reshammiya have Verma's name in credit,
    There are other such notable works as well which I will add in the article if kept, so not just the reliable sources but notable work evidence are also there by him which 23stan (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @23stan: How are these songs related to this person? I just couldn't find the relation.-BRP ever 05:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @BRPever if you check in song credits he is the one who has created these songs 23stan (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    He is credited as guitarist, but I don't think this is enough evidence to show notability.-BRP ever 05:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete:. The sources I checked were not reliable and independent expert assessments, but PR puffs. Not notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    need an explaination on how the sources are PR PUFF and not notable?, like the one beej did, it is notable and are reliable clearly 23stan (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
You've made about 20 edits to this discussion, and it's time you stopped and let others have their say. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
yeah but that doesn't explains how thesources aren't notable 23stan (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
And you should stop going on and not letting others contribute to this discussion. As Macdonald-ross said, most of your edit count is in this very page. SHB2000 (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 01:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Recently closed deletion discussionsEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Auntof6 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Bako Ambianda (second nomination)Edit

Bako Ambianda (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Aranya has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable businessman. The current sources look like puff pieces, and there doesn't seem to be any reliable coverage on him. Aranya (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete: as they fail the GNG criteria, and looks promotional. SHB2000 (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Note the subject can be found on google especially on Websites that belongs to africa, that shows notability, as for encyclopedic stable notability; yet i am not sure if the subject can Satisfy Wikipedia:GNG or not. --🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep although entrepreneur catagory in general aren't considered as notable but the sources provided on borderline satisfies notability, so as per sources it is a weak keep for me. 23stan (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete:. Clear delete because this person is not notable and this article mainly serves to promote him. SkeletalDome$ (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

*  Keep Makes several claims of notability (under awards) that seem to be notable and proven. If someone can prove to me that they are not then I am happy to change to delete. Blissyu2 (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Blissyu2:, none of those awards are notable. How can anyone be notable just by getting awards that barely anyone has heard of?-BRP ever 03:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    As I said, I am happy to change my mind on that if someone can convince me otherwise in a respectful tone, rather than just telling me I am wrong. Blissyu2 (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    •   Comment: I noted that 4 of the references are the same, and therefore the claims fail GNG. Changing to delete. Blissyu2 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: (Originally argued for keep) While there are clearly claims of notability, 4 of these are from the same reference, which is Forbes, which is not a reliable source. Unless there are better references for those claims, I have to go with delete. Blissyu2 (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. Clearly not notable, and likely another attempt of promotion. Some sources seem self-created.-BRP ever 03:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 22:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Auntof6 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Daniel Cheriff MoforEdit

Daniel Cheriff Mofor (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

MER-C has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Undisclosed paid-for spam created by Xenen1970 sockfarm, see m:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Xenen1970. Doesn't appear notable, sources are typical for paid-for spam. MER-C (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete - promotional article on a non-notable entrepreneur. It looks like some local Texas outlets (D Magazine, Dallas Observer) have covered his pursuits, but the rest is just obvious paid-for articles like the nominator has mentioned. The article mentions features in some notable fashion publications, but these are just photos and not in-depth coverage on him: Esquire, Vogue, GQ. Aranya (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: spam/advertising. SHB2000 (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Quick Delete What a waste of money this person used, to abuse Simple Wikipedia of all places for advertising. I feel sorry for him for all that wasted money, but it has to be deleted. Blissyu2 (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: still too soon to have an article on the wikipedia. --🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete:'Weak Delete case here, as lacks in depth coverages on notable publications. 23stan (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

*  Delete: Makes no real claim for notability. Biggest claim is that he won a rising star award in some non-notable publication. It's not enough. Blissyu2 (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC) - oops I put in delete twice sorry. Blissyu2 (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 17:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Pubic Hairy TrumanEdit

Pubic Hairy Truman (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Darkfrog24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This looks fake. IMDB has no page on this episode. En.wiki has no page on this episode. South Park Studios has no page on this episode: [13] The IP address that added this page has also added pages about real South Park episodes that had fake plot information. I think this is a prank. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete:. If it's a fake, out it goes. If it is not, the following applies. We know the series as a series is notable. So individual episodes are notable if they can show that they are notable. This means they need to be discussed by critics in a way that suggests they have quality. I don't see any of this kind of evidence. There are no sources at all. The viewership also has no source. If both these problems are fixed, OK. But they do have to be fixed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: While clearly South Park is notable and individual episodes are, this doesn't seem to be an episode. Maybe this is the name of a future episode (I wouldn't put it past South Park to name an episode something like this). Since it has 0 references other than the in-wiki link to Summer Sucks (a South Park episode that exists in multiple languages but has been nominated for deletion here), my suspicion is that someone was upset that Summer Sucks was being deleted and wanted to have something else there instead. Curiously, the RfD for Summer Sucks is still being discussed and with 1 each way there is no consensus reached quite yet. Perhaps people could discuss that one instead. [14] Blissyu2 (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I also note that this editor is writing a lot of South Park material, most of which is true, but they are also mixing it in with fake episodes like this. It might be worthwhile to go through and look at other edits by this user to see which ones are jokes. Blissyu2 (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I have been doing that very thing, Blissy, and I've already fixed several of the IP's articles. Honestly, some of these fake plots are pretty neat, though out they must go. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
They might be some things that the South Park creators might be interested in. There might be a place to put them. I'm not sure where though. Perhaps a Wiki for fancruft? Seems a shame to delete it completely when it perhaps could be moved to somewhere nice. Blissyu2 (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It's fanfiction. It belongs in a fanfiction archive and not here. I believe I have fixed all of the IP's articles now. Every one that could be an acceptable article is now an acceptable article. This person has not posted since October 1, so they've probably had their little joke and moved on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: per blissyu2 23stan (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: I get the same sentiments as Macdonald-ross. SHB2000 (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 20:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Auntof6 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Campus VartaEdit

Campus Varta (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Declined A4 quick deletion because they claimed to have won an award. The sources in the article seem promotional and I can only find primary sources online, so appears to fail the general notability guideline. Ferien (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Keep Seems to establish notability here. Is an online campus for India, the second-largest country in the world, and seems to be notable there. Has enough internet presence for me and seems to have won some awards. It's a big marginal but I think it gets to stay for now. Blissyu2 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete:. Once again, here is the definition of notability: "If a topic has received important coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". It's entirely possible that there are such sources, but the page does not show this, and it must. Rehashing PR-type clips does not do it. If you take out all the PR clips, there's no refs left. That's why the page is posted here. Understand, I'm not saying anything about its inherent notability, but about the rubbishy content of the supporting evidence. (And, as we all know, once a page like this gets in it almost never gets improved.) Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: as they fail the GNG criteria. SHB2000 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete: as per Macdonald-ross, and fails gng 23stan (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 17:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Auntof6 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Jacky LiewEdit

Jacky Liew (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Appears to fail the general notability guideline. No reliable sources in the article. On search engines, Facebook and LinkedIn start coming up on the first page. There's nothing I could find available actually related to Jacky Liew in Google News. Ferien (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete: From above: "No reliable sources in the article. On search engines, Facebook and LinkedIn start coming up on the first page". I feel that is a strong reason for deletion.
    About who were part of the first bunch of food critics (in his country)? A reputable historian (about newspapers and other media) would be able to say if the first known food critics, acted in the 1930s or in the 19th century, or even earlier. (The article says that the subject started his career in the 1980s. He was not the country's first food critic - not by a long shot.) If no wikipedia-user shows a notable source that says that Liew was the first food critic - then that part should be taken out of the article, no matter what. 89.8.126.117 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep His Imdb page [15] has 3 entries and he also has wiki pages in 14 languages linked, which all seem to establish notability pretty comfortably. This is an easy one for me. Blissyu2 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry, but this editor does not understand the criteria for notability. It is not about IMDB or other wikis or what he thinks, it is about what qualified people think, as defined in WP:Notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This is not a vote. It is an argument in an attempt to build consensus. Such comments don't help. Thank you. Blissyu2 (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The other languages also go further to establish notability which may not be so obvious in this article. If someone who is a native speaker of one of the other languages can translate, then this is perhaps an easier debate to reach. Blissyu2 (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Zhwp AFD has a keep result. Was send for G11, and then declined for AFD, then there are users claiming advert. Those keeps including page creator said meets notablity as he wrote a book that can be found in many libraries which qualifies for WP:BIO (zhwp version) or rather enwp version of NAUTHOR. The closing admin then close with Keep, not an advert. Typically we will follow other projects, and large ones, with such extensive discussion, if a page is Keep in zhwp and the subject was in an Zh speaking region (Malaysia has Bahasa Malaysia as 1st language, and Chinese as 2nd), that's good enough for a keep. The only cavaet is that the closing admin, CCF, is now globally banned per Office Actions, so this determination might require review. Hence, I just translated the key points of the zh discussion up to simple to determine. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    A good point to make. This seems like an interesting discussion to have, and is not clear-cut at all. There are arguments both ways. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. Blissyu2 (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Comment "a book that can be found in many libraries" is not a universal hallmark of notability, It is also a POV claim, and it can mean one book in three libraries in all of China, and it can even mean books which have arrived at libraries as "spam", or arrived at libraries as paid product placement. 89.8.72.247 (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
      The "closing admin [at Zhwp], CCF, is now globally banned"? Yes, and therefore we can in this case, not use their problematic process, as a pillow, so to speak. 89.8.72.247 (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      2 points: Zhwp BIO has it that if a person books is in multiple national level libraries etc, it can be deemed notable. This person have a book that is in the libraries of Singapore and Malaysia. So that fulfills this. On simple, WP:FOLLOW we only deal with enwp, so this is just a sort of reference which is lower than guidelines. And yes the admin is globally banned, but across wikimedia, we have admins who are that too but then not all of their judgements are problematic at all times. My 2 cents. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete:. It really doesn't matter what other wikis do or don't do. We are pinned to En wiki, and their rules for notability are what count. To make a new book notable, known experts have to review it and give their opinion. For older books it should be possible to look at the cultural effect of a book to get some independent opinion. If the papers and other media have been corrupted by the income from adverts, there is nothing we can do about it, but they are not evidence of notability. Remember, Google (etc) only advertises goods if they get paid for it! Where does that money come from? Where do you think? It comes from the extra sales generated by the placement on Google! Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Comment: Are we? I was told elsewhere that we are not. Is there a policy that says that Simple English Wikipedia is a function of English Wikipedia? I wasn't aware that that was established at all and there seems to be some confusion about that. Blissyu2 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    We have WP:FOLLOW which I said above which is a guideline that when we don't have any local policies / guidelines, we can take enwp policies / guidelines as guidelines. But clearly we are an independent project in all sense, like we can set our own rules etc. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Only within limits. We use WP guideline on notability, and that's what counts here and, no, we cannot ignore that. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Delete:. I failed to find sufficient amount of sources that can satisfy notability, also just being a columnist on some publication doesn,t makes a person notable as writing a column is a journalists job so it is clearly not notable unless they meet GNG 23stan (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This request is due to close on 16:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Related pagesEdit