Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 28	March 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Pontinha

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

Most of the sources mention the nation as a trivial thing in light of the main topic of the source. This shows that the article isn't very notable and seems like it was started by the nation's founder as the IP which created the article has only ever edited this article and nothing else. If notability can't be shown I suggest that the page is deleted. Natalius (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because someone proclaims a place independent doesn't make it so. Sources here are largely trivial. Reywas92^Talk 14:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I easily found sources that establish notability. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/principality-of-pontinha https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/14/experience-i-founded-my-own-country CT55555 (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC) (deleted due to good analysis below) CT55555 (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Portugal, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't researched enough about this to provide a !vote, but I don't think CT55555's sources are usable: Atlas Obscura is user-generated and the Guardian source was written by the self-proclaimed founder so not independent. eviolite (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dug deeper and you are correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#Atlas_Obscura I'll score my vote out. CT55555 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some sources and IW links, WP:GEOPURP says micronations aren't covered by Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) and that GNG applies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Bangkok

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

Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:NCORP. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 09:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 09:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rlink2 (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Rlink2 (talk · contribs), would you review the sources I provided and my rewrite of the article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or make it part of All Seasons Place article. Cunard's list of references given in the first AfD nomination looks sufficient to me to keep it. The hotel is one building part of All Seasons Place office complex so it can also be placed into that article. Currently it's a redirect to the tallest building in the complex. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not sufficiently meet notability requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, then merge/redirect to All Seasons Place ~~after reorganisation~~ (done), per Lerdsuwa and my comments at the previous AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Yeager, John (2008-10-05). "Bangkok joins the powerhouse". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  The article notes: "Architecturally, the Conrad is quite unlike the standard tower or upright slab. Its unusual octagonal footprint allows rooms of differing shapes and provides a variety of angles, aspects and views. Accommodation wings are built around a huge swimming pool and open-air spa bath, giving it the feel of a resort rather than a sterile business hotel."
2. Feinstein, Paul. "Fodor's Expert Review: Conrad Bangkok". Fodor's. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  The article notes: "Surrounded by embassies and attached to a massive shopping and condominium complex, the Conrad is a stunning, high-end property that prides itself on incredible service and endless amenities. Ideal for families and business travelers alike, the hotel is a polished gem with great restaurants, a top of the line spa, and is in a safe and upscale location."
3. Bright, Craig (2019-06-06). "Hotel review: Conrad Bangkok". Business Traveller. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  The article notes: "The hotel's renovation has certainly given the Conrad Bangkok a fresh, contemporary facelift that helps bring it up to standard with the many other new properties opening their doors around the city. As is common with newly renovated hotels, I discovered a couple of very minor teething problems that could do with being ironed out – namely, the plug sockets that needed to be broken in, as well as the somewhat recalcitrant in-room sensors – but I’m sure these issues will be addressed promptly and they didn’t really negatively impact my stay."
4. Nayer, Anjeeta (2013-04-26). "Review: Conrad Bangkok Hotel". Macaron Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  The article notes: "The Conrad Bangkok is situated in Bangkok’s Ploenchit district, a modern though relatively tranquil enclave of the city and is home to tall office towers, consulates and embassies and the lush Lumpini Park. ... The room was very spacious and elegantly adorned in soothing, muted colors and anointed with tasteful Thai-style decorative accents."
5. Jirasakunthai, Choosak (2003-01-10). "Conrad kicks off with superhero stunt". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  The article notes: "The 392-room new arrival on Wireless Road is set to emerge as a serious contender to the nearby hotel Plaza Athenee. ... Among the hotel's unique touches are its interior - in modern Thai style - and the staff uniforms, for which the hotel has eschewed the cliched traditional Thai look."
6. Rungfapaisarn, Kwanchai; Lueng-uthai, Patcharee (2006-10-09). "Conrad revamps for executives". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  The article notes: "After a slight drop in its occupancy rate this year as a result of "unfavourable conditions", the Conrad Bangkok hotel expects to benefit from a rise in average daily room rates resulting from its expanded and renovated executive floors."
7. Long, Rachel (November 2003). "Conrad Bangkok Hotel: 2003 gold key finalist guestroom". Hospitality Design. Vol. 25, no. 8.
  The article notes: "Think Thai silk, glowing teak, and carved timber platform beds. In the Conrad Bangkok Hotel guestrooms, there's no mistaking this is Thailand, where a sort of sensible elegance and use of local materials can clearly create a sense of place."
8. Mekloy, Pongpet (2019-07-25). "Conrad Bangkok". Bangkok Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
9. Sritama, Suchat (2006-03-09). "Conrad Phuket opens in '07". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
10. Jirasakunthai, Choosak (2003-11-14). "Conrad seeks to lure diners". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Conrad Bangkok to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok participants: Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs), Paul_012 (talk · contribs), FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs), Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), Dream Focus (talk · contribs), SportingFlyer (talk · contribs), Pldx1 (talk · contribs), Piotrus (talk · contribs), Gidonb (talk · contribs), Nsk92 (talk · contribs), Levivich (talk · contribs), Timtempleton (talk · contribs), and Emperork (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Thanks Cunard for rescuing articles from deletion. I guess it is the second article I see you have rescued.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I rewrote the article. The article previously had 155 words and six sources. The article now has over 1,800 words and 22 sources. The article discusses the hotel's history, location, architecture, and amenities. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was terrible back then, heck, even until a day or so ago when User:Cunard rewrote it mangificently. I only wish the world was fair and the hotel would sponsor a trip for him in recognition of his efforts :P --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Piotrus (talk · contribs)! If only the hotel would sponsor a stay for me at its Presidential Suite (its biggest room at 238 m² (2,560 sq ft)) to reward me for my efforts. ;) Cunard (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the previous discussion, I reached the conclusion that we are better off keeping and that the topic passes the WP:GNG and WP:NORG before any improvements. See there. Now that the article has been improved, there is even a stronger case for keep. Thank you, Cunard. A Barnstar is on the way to you for your efforts! gidonb (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was notable before, now there are even more reliable sources confirming this. Dream Focus 14:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sourcing added to article. Meets WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scannerfm

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE only found listings and social media. Unsourced article. The Banner talk 08:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Spain. Justi yaya 09:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is completely unsourced, and is written in such a way that it's very unclear whether this is a real AM or FM radio station (which would be a valid notability claim, but would still require proper reliable sources to support it) or an internet radio stream (which isn't a notability claim at all in the absence of a very clear WP:GNG pass.) Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. When you filter out the nonsense, there is a consensus to delete here. If anyone wants this as a Draft, let me know. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Perlmutter

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

Fails WP:GNG SadHaas (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subject does not appear to meet the qualifications surrounding notability. Subject has held a managerial role at a publicly traded company, something that many people can claim. Negotiating an internet agreement with Cuba is not a notable enough accomplishment in and of itself to justify this person having a Wikipedia biography. Although the rest of the subject's pedigree is impressive, nothing in his background appears to meet the notability requirements.

This article was previous proposed (but not nominated for deletion), but the proposal was removed by the original creator of the page on the defense that "signing the first Internet agreement between a US company and Cuba is much more than a business achievement; it is a historic moment in the development of Internet in Cuba (see articles related to that subject)." This rationale is faulty for several reasons.

First, the source material confirms that the subject DID NOT sign the internet agreement in question. Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, signed the agreement. The subject was part of a several-person team that took part in negotiations.

Second, the source material referenced is from the Penn Gazette, which is the alumni magazine for the subjects Alma Mater, University of Pennsylvania. Per this publication's own website, the magazine is "written for, about, and frequently by alumni" of the University. I would call into question whether an alumni magazine with such a mission statement would constitute an independent source.

On further review, it appears that much of the source material comes from alumni magazines, a Google sponsored blog for its own employees (certainly not an independent or unbiased source given the topic of this page), as well as several legitimate news articles where the subject is only mentioned in passing or has one of his blog entries quoted. In one Wall Street Journal from 12-16-2016, Brett Perlmutter is not mentioned in the article at all, although he is pictured in an image attached to the article. On reviewing the source material, I cannot identify a single article where the subject of this biography is also the main subject discussed in the article, unless that article is from a publication affiliated with either the subjects company, or a school he graduated from.

All that the source material confirms is that Mr. Perlmutter was indeed employed by Google, and has some role in the negotiation of this internet deal. However, the claim that Mr. Perlmutter was alone instrumental enough in orchestrating this deal to meet the requirement for notability is not supported by independent source material. Further, even if the source material did support this, the signing of an internet deal with Cuba alone still might not meet the notability requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadHaas (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm kind of on the fence. There is a fair amount of source material, but this could be considered WP:1E, as he doesn't seem to be notable except for his involvement in the agreement between Google and Cuba. Is there perhaps an article with which this one can merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMB1980 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shell, as the general rule per WP:1E is to cover the event and not the person, I think the most appropriate outcome is to merge some information regarding the internet deal into the existing article "Internet in Cuba", and delete the individual article on Brett Perlmutter. The Internet in Cuba page currently mentions nothing about this specific deal and would be the most appropriate place to move such information SadHaas (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update to the above: The "Internet in Cuba" article does have a single line referencing the Google deal. The source for that specific line (a Business Insider article) has a brief mention of Brett Perlmutter's role as negotiator of the deal.

I question how significant of an event this is if Wikipedia's "Internet in Cuba" article has such a small reference to it. I think this event can be expanded on in the "Internet in Cuba" article instead of warranting a stand-alone article for Brett Perlmutter SadHaas (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per Nom. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Person is a significant and meets all threshold for notability. I've added sourced highlighting Perlmutter's seminal role in not only the development of Internet in Cuba but also the Cuban Thaw. See changes and referencing here too:
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-google-cuba-faster-access-company.htmlhttps://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-google-move-improve-islands-connectivity-62004795
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0321/How-Google-plans-to-improve-Internet-service-in-Cuba
https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/el-hombre-de-google-en-cuba-201642500
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some other notes --
1. this person is responsible for many events, so WP;1E does not apply
2. Sourcing is much more vast than alumni magazines, please review sourcing
Lobsteroll (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing only confirms Perlmutter's role involving Google's expansion in Cuba. Referring to this as more than one event is a stretch.

All other achievements are sourced from either alumni magazines or the transcript of an interview with Perlmutter by a representative of his alma mater. A transcript of an interview does not meet the threshold of an independent source, as is it quoted from Perlmutter himself and therefor not independently verified.

Added source material does not appear to validate claim that Perlmutter held a seminal role. Each article has, at most, a quote by Perlmutter. (I exclude El Observador from this observation as it is written in Spanish).

Wikipedia threshold for source material dictates that context matters WP:CONTEXTMATTERS

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

All that the added source material supports is that the event occurred, and was of some notability. The references to Perlmutter are insufficient to warrant his own BLP SadHaas (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few other notes:

1. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"... In this case, the person has had a highly significant role not only over one event, but of the course of multiple events

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-and-obama-administration-connect-over-cuba-1458763836 ... in which perlmutter is the key person

2. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." ... It is important to note that Perlmutter is notable for more than one event, but famous for a key few

2. Independent source materials do show that Perlmutter was responsible for orchestrating both deals (December 2016 and March 2019), as well as creating the first internet center with high speed broadband in March 2016, which was announced by President Obama

https://www.forbes.com/profile/brett-perlmutter/?sh=48acc2861e69

https://apnews.com/article/cuba-north-america-technology-caribbean-business-d076fa0c68b440ada320cec8478a08dc ... in which Perlmutter signed March 2019 deal ... again nothing short of historic to sign the first deal to pave the way for US-Cuba subsea cable

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-signs-deal-with-cuba-to-speed-services-1481573940 ... Perlmutter in photo caption is clearly present at signing of Dec 2016 deal Lobsteroll (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, this article meets a higher threshold of notability than other BLPs, including: David Haberfeld Lobsteroll (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. This event is not highly significant, and the broad article Internet in Cuba has only a brief mention of this event. Google signing a deal to operate servers in Cuba, the 63rd largest economy in the world with a population of 11 million, is hardly highly significant. If it is, why does it not have its own article, or at least more detail on an article exclusively dedicated to the Internet in Cuba?

2. As perviously mentioned, none of the source material seems to support the assertion that Perlmutter alone was responsible for bringing internet to Cuba. The Wall Street Journal Article above does not mention Perlmutter at all, save for a caption indicating his presence in a photo. This does not support the assertion that the subject had a significant role; it refutes it.

3. The Forbes source material clearly indicates that its contents were provided by Brett Perlmutter. A profile provided by the subject constitutes self published material and fails to meet the threshold of reliable, independent source material.

4. If a user has concerns about the notability of subjects of other BLP, they can propose that article for deletion. The notability of David Haberfeld is irrelevant to this discussion. SadHaas (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP: Finally, many Google executives pass the notability threshold: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Google_employees ... thus that is not an argument for deletion of this page~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
The inclusion of other Google executives is not pertinent to this discussion. Google has 140,000 employees; some of them will be notable enough for a BLP. This discussion is limited to whether Perlmutter alone meets the notability threshold for a BLP SadHaas (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The included source material is either inapplicable or fails to demonstrate that Perlmutter meets notability standard. The orchestration of this internet deal does not meet the standard of a "highly significant event", and a standalone BLP for subject with no notability beyond this is not warranted — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadHaas (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: SadHaas (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Merge some data into page Internet in Cuba, which only sparsely mentions the event the subject is involved with. As it is Google's internet deal with Cuba that appears noteworthy, not the subject, further elaboration of the internet deal should be merged to the relevant existing article SadHaas (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: SadHaas (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Delete. I searched for coverage in Google, Google News, ProQuest, and Newspapers.com. The only sources that I could find simply quoted Perlmutter or mentioned him in passing: it cannot be said that any of them "addresses the topic directly and in detail" for purposes of the GNG. For instance, the Wall Street Journal article mentioned above contains nothing more than a few quotes from Perlmutter; it does not discuss him in depth. Notability requires significant coverage, and Perlmutter does not seem to meet that requirement. I considered the possibility of merging/redirecting to Internet in Cuba, but I feel that, given the very limited sourcing available, any mention of him in that article would be undue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Forbes article contains original reporting from Forbes at bottom of page https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30-2016/media/#5a2c11c441a5 67.53.60.250 (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I note that virtually all of the discussion here (including multiple "!votes") emanates from two low-activity editors whose only participation in Wikipedia seems to revolve around the creation, and attempted deletion, of this article. Relisting for broader input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 03:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Perlmutter clearly meets the BLP requirement for three notable achievements: 1. March 2016 negotiated Google Global Cache agreement .... see Miami Herald article behind paywall https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article170757412.html 2. March 2019 Negotiated Peering agreement https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-google-move-improve-islands-connectivity-62004795 and 3. Obama announced Internet center https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/03/21/obama-announced-google-fiber-to-be-used-in-cuba.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3046635/google-to-bring-internet-to-unconnected-cuba.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.60.250 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 67.53.60.250 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Delete. Source material barely mentions Perlmutter at all, and does not support the claim that he was instrumental enough in multiple events to warrant a BLP. The event Perlmutter was involved with should be elaborated on other articles, but Perlmutter himself definitely fails the notability requirement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Perlmutter is mentioned in all references and citations in entry. Not hard to realize he was instrumental in not one event, but rather multiple, and clearly meets BLP notewrthiness standards Lobsteroll (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened after a "no consensus" closure and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the AfD review, it was suggested by the initial AfD closer that all duplicate votes be struck to reduce confusion for whoever closes this discussion. I am in agreement that this should be done. Most of the prior discussion was done by two suspected WP:SPA, and the noise crowds out the commentary of other contributors. Ksoze1 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck all of the duplicate votes I can find. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pppery, how about moving them to the talk page? The visual clutter is too much. Indeed, how about moving DUCK !votes too, including the nomination?User:Pppery SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ user:Pppery and @user:SmokeyJoe. Today is the last day this discussion is slated to be open and there has not been any additional commentary. Might you both consider adding your thoughts on the matter given your input into the relisting discussion? Ksoze1 (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage in the article isn't even primarily about him, it's about the internet speed efforts, the rest of what's there is....cruft. CUPIDICAE💕 16:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close. This AfD is a mess. Tainted by the nominator being a WP:DUCK, and with a lot of other dubious input. Allow renomination by an experienced editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Donovan (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best a Google search yields is a YouTube video of a fight. Ironmatic1 (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another in a long, long, long line of NN hockey articles created by Dolovis, who was ultimately community banned from new article creation for routinely defying notability standards for the same. Unremarkable college career, ephemeral career in the low minors. Fails any iteration of NHOCKEY, all sources are primary, fails the GNG going away. Ravenswing 07:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Roosevelt

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

Taking to AFD after a PROD was contested. I don't see a lot of evidence this guy was noted for much of his own merit (in other words, things that didn't have to do with family connections). Many references that do mention him at all seem more focused on other relatives. Being related to someone famous isn't by itself a sufficient basis for an article. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have what it takes to warrant one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my view, when it comes to sourcing the "what" is more important than the "why": if someone has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then the question of whether they deserved that coverage is really just academic. In Roosevelt's case, there's really no disputing that he meets the GNG: for instance, we have lengthy coverage in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, etc.; a page-and-a-half-long entry in The Eleanor Roosevelt Encyclopedia (which provides biographical coverage and also describes Eleanor Roosevelt's "mixed feelings about her brother....When he died, [Eleanor] had yet one more reason to turn to her own work in an effort to ease the ache in her heart."); a fair bit in this book about Justice Frank Murphy (noting that "Murphy's appointment of G. Hall Roosevelt as city comptroller proved a decisive step in his career"), and a bit here as well as in the local press about his work as Detroit city comptroller—and that's all from just a cursory search. Would he have received all that coverage if he hadn't been a Roosevelt? No. But "merit" is, for better or for worse, not a notability criterion, as the entries at Category:Royal children make plain. WP:NOTGENEALOGY can be relevant in some cases, but I don't think it is here: there is a veritable boatload of non-genealogical coverage (as discussed above), and the article describes Roosevelt from an encyclopedic perspective. Sometimes a merge to an article like Roosevelt family can be prudent, but in this case there's enough encyclopedic content to make that undesirable (see crit. 2 here). I thus feel that, given the sourcing, a stand-alone article about Hall Roosevelt is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to accessibility issues, the only newspaper linked where I even can see his name outside of headline titles is The Boston Globe (the others just blur out the actual article) while and Eleanor's Encyclopedia just gives a title page and the aforementioned books only appear to show some brief quotes. What else is there that specifically focuses on Hall as an individual and isn't just a work more about his sister, Presidential uncle, brother-in-law, children, or wives? Something where all text can easily be viewed is preferable. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is often an inclination to decide which individuals should have articles based on our views of their personal merit or importance but that was rejected right back at the start of the development of our notability guidelines. No, we decided to judge notability based on coverage by what has been published externally and, although "published" has become assessed with increasing nuance over the years, plenty of appropriate material is available here. Thincat (talk)
Keep. There are three New York Times articles currently used on the article focusing on different points in the subject's life, and the NYT is considered a good source per WP:NYTIMES. After the subject died, Time reported on his death (seen here), as did the Burlington Free Press (seen here). The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project also has a profile on him (seen here). Easily passes GNG for me. --Kbabej (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any concerns with the credibility of The New York Times. My issue with those particular links—and some of the others listed above—is that they require subscriptions (which not all readers will have), and this makes it harder to assess depth. As for your links, the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project is not considered independent of the subject when closely associated with family (namely his famous sister), and I don't believe Time is either because it's largely based off her comments on him. Conversely, The Burlington Free Press doesn't rely on family quotes or affiliations, so that would help show independent coverage. That's not saying your others are bad, just that they don't help as much with establishing notability. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have plenty of coverage, including obituaries in major newspapers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the other Keeps and, particularly, Extraordinary Writ and find the independent sources and roles the subject had to be significant and worthy, notwithstanding his family connections, which, in my opinion, only enhance his noteworthiness. In the article, I included the quote from his obituary from The New York Times, "even if he had not belonged to the nation's first family, he could have been justly proud of his career as an electrical engineer, World War flier, banker, financier and municipal official." Re: SNUGGUMS, I'm not sure why your accessibility issues with reviewing well known and reliable sources should discount the sources themselves. Perhaps you can request access from the Wikipedia Library? DACC23 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said those refs should be discounted altogether, just that their limited accessibility make it harder to assess them for depth and details. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrajectine

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG. I am not even sure the subject even exists substantially, that is it seem to me the adjective "Ultrajectine" has numerous vague meanings.
I have tried googling "Ultrajectine" and nothing substantial came up. Google scholar's 39 mentions range from vaguely refering to Old Catholicism to refering to the city of Utrecht; therefore, the expression is unclear and does not seem to refer to the "tradition [...] of the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands headquartered at Utrecht, Netherlands." If one is to discuss the beliefs of Old Catholics in general, Old Catholic Church#Beliefs already exists to do so.
As for reliable sources discussing the topic, I found:

The Other Catholics: Remaking America's Largest Religion (Columbia University Press, 2016) states (p. 88): "The new Catholic church created by Varlet, Steenoven, and the Utrecht community endured. It gave rise to a new adjective, 'ultrajectine.' Like ultramontane, the word 'ultrajectine' has geographical connotations. Derived from traiectum, Latin for 'ford,' it is the old Roman Empire name for Utrecht."

The author also gives a narrow definition of the word (p. 90): "And while today's US [Catholic] independents are far removed from Varlet's concerns, they recognize themselves in him. They call him their founder, name him a saint, and celebrate his feast day. As one American independent website puts it: 'Meet the Ultrajectines.' " (the source for this latter quote is: Raphael J. Adams, "Meet the Ultrajectines: A Brief Introduction to Old Catholic Thought," New Perspectives (Louisville, Ky.) 3, no. 1 (2002): 11–14.); it is quite strange the author does not cite a website despite claiming to rely on one, especially since the website of the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America entry below has the same title by the same author).

The author also uses the adjective "ultrajectine" at other places throughout the book, but with unclear meanings sometimes. The author mentions an "ultrajectine theology" once (p. 110) without explaining what it means.

The 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions mentions (p. 1151, entry "Old Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. (Hough)"): Joseph Damien Hough being an "ultajectine" bishop. Melton also states: "The ultrajectine element predominated, and whorship and belief followed the ultrajectine tradition."

However, nowhere is the "ultrajectine" adjective defined in the book (you can check for yourself at the Internet Archive).

I have not been able to find other sources of such a high reliability using the word "Ultrajectine", the source using this adjective are in general very scarce.
The old version of the article (before I removed most of the information two weeks ago) had no reliable inline source, and was a patchwork of copy-pastes of unrelated public domain encyclopedia entries. None of the original two encyclopedia entries given as sources mention the word "Ultrajectine" or the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands; all those entries are about other well-defined subejct (WP:GNG). The Old Roman Catholic Church in North America website entry is not a RS and is not independent of the subject (again, GNG).
So, I propose the article be deleted or turned into a Wiktionary soft redirect. Veverve (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like you've actually done the WP:BEFORE that so many miss. Combined with zero citations, I find it easy to say delete. CT55555 (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also Special:Diff/633110498 on the talk page from 2014. Uncle G (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citing of Adams 2002 by Julie Byrne is correct, by the way, and not strange at all. New Perspectives was (for about 7 issues, according to what the Wayback Machine makes available) that organization's print magazine, only some of the articles in which are put onto the WWW site, the rest being available via a subscription to the print edition. That's actually a proper citation for the magazine article, similar to {{cite magazine}}, a better one than was managed in the edit history of this article (Special:Diff/632104292 using {{cite web}}), I note, especially as whatever print copies there were have probably outlasted the WWW site. ☺ It's not wholly unexpected that an academic does a better job of citing than we do. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a small stub using the book references identified by the nominator, and tag for more. Deletion is a step too far in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
tag for more: the article has been in a terrible state form more than 15 years, a banner is not going to change anything. Also, the scope of the article is still very vague when looking at sources. Veverve (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. This is a one-line stub, which is useless as an article. Since its implications are not explained, it is not even a dictionary definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: the one line itself is unsourced, so a merge ould be very ill-advised. The meaning of "Ultrajectine" is vague, but Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands states one of the names for this denmination is "Church of Utrecht (Ultrajectine Church)" so a redirect could work. Veverve (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. There's too little to keep and even to merge but a redirect is justified. The sources and discussion above could improve the redirect target. gidonb (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge both to BirdLife Australia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birds Australia Northern NSW

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

Cannot find any reliable secondary sources; article is unref'd and appears to have been so for some time. AviationFreak💬 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the following for deletion as functionally the same article:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: This organisation is a subgroup of what is now BirdLife Australia (BLA) and has been renamed BirdLife Northern NSW. If not kept, it should be merged to the BLA article. Information relating to it can be accessed from the BLA website. The same applies to Birds Australia Western Australia, now BirdLife Western Australia. Incidentally, listing it on Austria-related discussions is presumably a typo - try Australia-related discussions. Maias (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The BirdLife Australia article already has all the information from the other two articles (and has for several years actually), so a merge would in reality be just redirecting those pages. Steelkamp (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~Birds Australia~~ BirdLife Australia: They are a regional group of the larger group. Gusfriend (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Friends Studios

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

May not pass WP:GNG. A search on Google shows limited new coverage. – robertsky (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - managed to find very little secondary sources mentioning the studio, none of which are reliable. Agree with nom that doesn't pass WP:GNG. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage from gnews is mainly limited to 1 line mentions, nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China-Solomon Islands relations

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

Redundant with China–Solomon Islands relations which redirects to the quite detailed Sino-Pacific relations#Solomon Islands. Not sure if it is best to restore this redirect or move to the correct title with endash. Gjs238 (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and China. Justi yaya 09:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The recent security agreement draft has been huge news and the two countries have a long history of mutual entanglement, which is very reasonably documented. Atchom (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they started having relations just recently in 2019 and the issue with the possible Chinese military bases on Australia's borders in the past week is a very significant geopolitical issue. It deserves its own article. If China someday has a base there, I would also say that the base itself should have its own article. Reesorville (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the topic meets WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the article, some quick searching on Google Scholar finds in-depth coverage in other sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. But please do correct the punctuation, retarget relevant redirects, and move information from the Sino-Pacific relations article to this one as needed. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M.E.I. Recordings

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

Draft rejected numerous times at AfC [8] but recreated again in mainspace. I'm not convinced that there's enough to meet NCORP - sources read like paid promotional pieces. KH-1 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to share this welcome message from the article creator's talk page: "Hi Meirecordings! I noticed your contributions to COVID-19 pandemic in Madhya Pradesh and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay." Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much like Edgeout Records, this appears to be a label that wrote its own article before it actually had any notable artists, and like Edgeout, it has been remarkably successful at getting its PR releases republished on otherwise-respectable journalistic outlets. Honestly, I don't think it makes sense for us to cover a label even if it meets GNG if it has no notable artists (and, conversely, with WP:MUSIC, I'd argue GNG is not necessary if the label has a sufficiently notable roster). I don't think there should be prejudice against re-creation here, if the label starts breaking artists, but there's no real encyclopedic value to our covering a label whose artists get no critical nor popular traction. Chubbles (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources, minus two of them, are all Google News websites which I was in the belief were acceptable sources. Mrmilesmayhem (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Ike Rhein, https://www.google.com/search?q=ike+rhein, is a pretty notable artist. The company has also worked with notable artists including The Game and Luh Kel. Mrmilesmayhem (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. 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. "Puff profiles" to promote the label are no independent content. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth". None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage which are reliable and independent of the subject. Fails WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Marin (actor)

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

Based on my further search on Google, the article does not have additional sources. The refs provided are questionable, with the second and fourth from the unreliable IMDB, and the first from BTVA, in which the Perennial Sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Behind_the_Voice_Actors) list stated that "There is consensus that Behind the Voice Actors is generally reliable for roles credits. Editors agree that its coverage is not significant and does not contribute to notability." The third ref could possibly be reliable (although I am unsure), nevertheless, it is mostly the info that Marin himself provided (and should likely be attributed), and does not constitute the coverage from multiple sources. Many thanks for your time and help. VickKiang (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Comics and animation, and Michigan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I find are mentions of him appearing at ComiCon. Leaning delete. 02:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Weak Delete Personally I'm a fan of him he is a good voice actor of my childhood show like 2 in Am Pm, Regular show and many more. But surprisingly can't find any significant references of him. So it's a delete per norm. @@@XyX _talk 04:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of secondary sourcing. Generic name and a couple of roles outside Regular Show make it an unlikely redirect candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was For Speedy Deletion WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Tow (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trader2B

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

Likely does not meet WP:CORP. My research only appears to show newswire releases. Tow (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, Technology, and Florida. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello sir, according to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria, the firm has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It was acquired by LiveOne, Inc. (NASDAQ: LVO), with over 100 million users, in December which is also mentioned on many reliable secondary sources. It does not only appear in the newswire sir, it has also mentioned in many other reliable sources which I can add to provide more references. --Zabire Telsim (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a mix of behavioral and technical evidence, the now-blocked article creator appears to be User:Hammad Chaudhry. Happy to speedy this under WP:G5 if anyone wants, or we can let the AfD run its course. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- previously deleted by admin. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Schroder

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

Fails to meet WP:NPOL as a small-town mayor with no other offices held. Could not find significant coverage outside the local area. Sounder Bruce 00:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 00:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 00:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The NPOL defines notable politicians and judges as "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Coming from the fact I was able to find 30 sources either focusing on or including information on Rob Schroder I believe this meets the definition of "significant press coverage." In addition, the fact that Wikipedia allows for stud articles about people like Ygnacio Martinez to exist, the former Alcalde of Yerba Buena to exist despite only have 4 sources, but targets my well-documented article is completely unfair. DenbyDoo (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep The attack on him was very notable, I added in more sources. I'd do more, but was getting edit conflicts. I think this is an example of a page that needs work, not deletion. CT55555 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:BLP1E would apply, then. Not enough to warrant a separate article. Sounder Bruce 01:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  BLP1E is for people who are in the media for only one event, who are otherwise low profile. He is in the media for more than one event, and so it does not apply. The essay at WP:NOTBLP1E explains this really well. CT55555 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my mind on this as I see the creator of it add in more uncited material and material not well connected to the subject. Delete. CT55555 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're referencing when you say "added more uncited sources." I would appreciate if you could point them out, but I feel everything mentioned is decently cited. DenbyDoo (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be easier if you just looked at the sections that didn't have any citations. Some examples of such sections:
Development

Homelessness

Protests

Committee assignments
Please consider the very basic baseline here that statements on Wikipedia need to be cited. CT55555 (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator I am bound to agree. I feel that there is enough coverage of this specific person to warrant the existence of this page, but as the sole author of this entry it is rather hard to document everything on my own. I feel it should be left up and allowed to be worked on by others interested in the topic. DenbyDoo (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would recommend you move this into draft and reconsider your approach to this article. Rather than write and then try to add citations, start by putting in only what is notable and specifically about the person. It seems like you're trying to make an article about him and a lot of other things at the same time and I think more time learning Wikipedia guidelines would help you. CT55555 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to style my article in the same way many wikipedia articles are written on US Presidents, they focus on events that occurred during their terms that they had a slight influence on. This can be seen in my articles by my references to the BLM mural, city baseball team, and assault as these are all events that directly involved or were pushed by the subject of the article. DenbyDoo (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if my earlier tone is harsh. Wikipedia is a complicated set of rules.

The way to approach this to be successful is research the person. Look on Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar and see what high quality sources say about them. Then design an article based around that in draft. When it's ready, move into the main space. If you move into space before that is done, people will propose deletion.

I think if you move it into Draft, people can help you get it to standard. I'll volunteer to help. But right now, it's in the public space and you are inviting critique of it before it's ready. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought pages in the draft stage were only visible by me, I'm more than happy to move it to the draft stage if others can still help edit the page and make it more refined/presentable. :) DenbyDoo (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People can see the draft if they know the url. Do yourself a favour and move it into draft, get it ready-sih and let me know and I'll help. CT55555 (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:COATRACK of denigration to fit in the mural and citizen's arrest, along with a Ponzi scheme that the city had no knowledge of before it was uncovered. This has little to do with the subject himself and more to do with things surrounding him from a bunch of disgruntled citizens. Nate • (chatter) 02:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to disagree. I contacted the mayor before publishing the final article and he confirmed he was satisficed with everything listed in the article and believed it was a fair and accurate depiction of events. If you would like to elaborate I'm open to it. DenbyDoo (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Though rare, a few notable protests have occurred in the city of Martinez under the leadership of Mayor Rob Schroder." Which had nothing to do with him or the city of Martinez in particular, and were not directed against him. The BLM protests would have happened no matter who was mayor or on city council. There's only mention of a bunch of attention-seekers trying to make a point. And now the original creator has moved this to draftspace to evade further AfD scrutiny. Nate • (chatter) 03:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommended he moved it to draft and work on it properly. I thought that was good advice. The author is clearly new and acting in good faith even if missing the mark. Let's be kind. CT55555 (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound like I'm trying to make excuses, but the BLM protest happened because of the defacing of a BLM mural which was painted downtown Martinez with the express permission of permits that Schroder himself signed and sent for approval to the city manager which is why I felt it should be included, and the "Though rare, a few notable protests have occurred in the city of Martinez under the leadership of Mayor Rob Schroder." was a segway into the subsection, I was under the impression that was how you're supposed to do it, but I guess I was wrong. I'm still learning how to structure a page and publishing it was a mistake. DenbyDoo (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mayor of Martinez, California, a city with the population of approximately 38,000, does not meet WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supercinema

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

Likely does not meet WP:NB. I have tried to look up the book itself and cannot find any evidence of its significance. Tow (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Film, and Education. Justi yaya 09:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did some work to this article before making this comment. It is briefly mentioned in LA Review of books, which doesn't add very much, but it is mentioned in the context of how it influenced a philosophy book by notable philosopher [Paul Virilo]]. Combined with another academic review, I say keep on the basis of WP:BK with the two non-trivial things being the other book and the academic paper. CT55555 (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: We could probably justify an article for the author, he looks like he's likely notable in his own right. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You inspired me: William Brown (author) CT55555 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as has coverage in academic sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the source available in the article. DMySon (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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