Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 17: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 55: Line 55:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Albawings destinations}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Albawings destinations}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacPherson (Warehouse 13)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacPherson (Warehouse 13)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeria Anastasia}}
<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeria Anastasia}} -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kuban Airlines destinations}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kuban Airlines destinations}}
<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Malhotra (2nd nomination)}} -->
<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Malhotra (2nd nomination)}} -->

Revision as of 02:09, 25 May 2023

< May 16 May 18 >

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 merge‎ to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (film). ✗plicit 01:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (soundtrack)

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this meets WP:NALBUM. Practically all of the sources used in the article are either unreliable or situational (which usually can't be used for notability). Film Music Reporter usually isn't reliable as per this discussion. Screen Rant cannot be used to demonstrate notability per WP:VG/S. Doing a WP:BEFORE check, I don't see any reliable sources that specifically covers the soundtrack. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 23:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Parents will enjoy some retro songs harking back to their middle school days like “It’s Tricky” or “This is How We Do It.” Grandparents are not overlooked; the soundtrack also features Andy Williams and Norah Jones."
So, yes, this soundtrack is quite notable, overall or for particular songs, and even the original score can be sourced. And a dedicated page was therefore a good idea, as there is material to write a good page.— MY, OH, MY! 09:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Zanoboard Reviews" is not a reliable source source, and passing mentions from movie reviews is a pretty weak argument for splitting out an article like this. This isn't much of an argument for independent notability. Sergecross73 msg me 10:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek articles from 2013–present are generally unreliable per WP:NEWSWEEK. I'm not sure about Theprp.com as a reliable source but it doesn't seem to have a lot on it's about us page. Also, please don't edit my nomination reasoning as you did here. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the PRP is to the music world is probably on par with what the screenrants, gamerants, and thegamers websites are to the video game world - situationally usable but not an ideal source or much of an argument for notability. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny and Oh So Bright Tour

Shiny and Oh So Bright Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NTOURS. Refs are a mix of routine coverage and band specific content. scope_creepTalk 19:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is not “routine”, it is information from various journalists that attended the shows and reported on what took place, and how those shows resonated so deeply with the audience. Furthermore, other of my references go into detail on band history and such, pointing as to why the tour itself was as important as it was. Squishedargarine (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was the one who added a notability tag and raised concerns on the talk page. Yes, there are some reliable sources that have reported on the tour, but I'm not sure it meets NTOUR's "Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability" clause. Most sources are pretty basic "this tour is happening with this lineup" and most content is already better written at the respective band and album articles. I'm leaning towards it failing WP:MERGEREASON's redundancy clauses. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to point out one more time that the sources for this article largely go in depth on the subject and provide detailed information on various aspects of this tour and its importance. Not to mention the overall importance of this tour, how it has affected the band since, and how much mainstream coverage/attention this tour was given. Squishedargarine (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your point., folk can read it. Your starting to WP:BLUDGEON folk. scope_creepTalk 07:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Editors remain broadly divided on the merits of these and similar lists. The introduction of notability considerations that apply only to some of the articles included in this nomination led to enough of a pile-up so as to make the emergence of any consensus highly unlikely. signed, Rosguill talk 23:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Sunny Isles Beach

List of tallest buildings in Sunny Isles Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For similar reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Syracuse, New York. Don't see how this article passes WP:NLIST. WP:NOTACATALOG. Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding these similar articles in this nom:

List of tallest buildings in North Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of tallest buildings in Rochester, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of tallest buildings in Camden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of tallest buildings in Albany, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of tallest buildings in Arlington, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Minnesota and New Jersey. Natg 19 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all A bunch of listings of buildings in small towns. These clearly do not meet WP:LISTN. The buildings are not even that high. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SIB and North Hudson For the first two...just all made up of random condo towers nobody would seriously catalog (and "North Hudson" feels like someone's pretend creation and not meant to be taken seriously). I feel like the other four for actual urban communities need to be separated into their own nom and am neutral on those. Nate • (chatter) 23:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Keep Sunny Isles Beach, it's more filled out and has towers over 200 meters (650 ft). Believe it or not with a few more bigger towers being built now it actually ranks high among US skylines. Much more than all of these or List of tallest buildings in Syracuse. B137 (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Depending on how overzealous you guys are, I could show you hundreds to thousands of weak articles to go after, likely enough to put a dent in the 6.45 million front page article count, making it go down a little since in the post modern society, such superlatives inlcuding tallest building are no longer in vogue, with a good chance for example that Burj Khalifa will never be surpassed. B137 (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're getting into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory. The important part for this nomination is WP:LISTN. – The Grid (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Azuredivay (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All: information as to the tallest building in one's local area is a great example of encyclopedic knowledge. These articles may not seem notable to the others in this thread, but I empathise with the local Wikipedians in the area, and I would expect them to regard this kind of list as notable. A list of an area's tallest buildings of an urban community is considerably more notable than say, a list of all the burger kings in an area; sufficiently such that I think these articles are worthy of encyclopedic entries Jack4576 (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sunny Isles and Comment on others. The construction of these buildings in Sunny Isles over the past 20 years has drawn considerable media attention, with several towers receiving critical awards, etc. The height argument presented above clearly does not apply here (or should be considered on its own for any article) as many of these buildings are taller than any in many lists for cities not proposed for deletion. Also, the “random condo towers” argument is not relevant either, or else the list for Miami should be considered for deletion as nearly all of those are condo buildings.Certainly the Miami Beach article is much less notable than this. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I have been PRODing articles about those condo towers in Miami for the past 3-4 years. Those articles border on failing WP:GEOLAND and if that's been the case for 15 years - I don't see that changing any time soon. The focus has always been WP:LISTN and WP:SIGCOV when these go through AfD. – The Grid (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All The articles are encyclopedic, provide ample sources and provide evidence of notability for each of these lists. Why merge / redirect hasn't been considered as an option is concerning. Alansohn (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to merge or redirect, if appropriate targets are found, but prefer deletion. Natg 19 (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep North Hudson per references in article (bad Wikipedia:BEFORE). Satisfies WP:LISTN.Djflem (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adams, Arthur G. (January 1, 1981). The Hudson. SUNY Press. ISBN 9780791494226 – via Google Books.
    • Wunsch, James L. (June 30, 1985). "New Jersey Opinion; Let's Guide Development to Save the Palisades". The New York Times – via NYTimes.com.
    • http://www.guttenbergnj.org/_Content/pdf/plans/Master-Plan-Guttenberg.pdf [bare URL PDF]
    • "10-Year Building Boom on Palisades Seems Over for Luxury Apartments". The New York Times. October 17, 1977.
    • Norman, Michael (July 4, 1982). "Palisades: New York's Other West Side". The New York Times.
    • Goldberger, Paul (25 January 1976). "The Palisades: Beauty and the Beast". The New York Times. Retrieved 17 June 2019 – via NYTimes.com.
    • Cheslow, Jerry (October 9, 2005). "Blending Two Cities Into One". The New York Times – via NYTimes.com.
  • Comment The height argument clearly does not apply here or should be considered for any article: There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline about heights of buildings. Any made are simply I DON'T LIKE (and Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT). Djflem (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bad assumption. One look into the search for Wikipedia:List of tallest buildings shows 1,777 results but it doesn't seem like all of them point to such discussions. When I do a more exact search, I get 54 results but that still seems low. It seems non-notable buildings have been redirected to "List of tallest buildings in [Place]" in the past. I'll mention this the last time for this AfD, the focus is WP:LISTN. Can this list suffice notability on its own? If not, a merge to the place's name is a valid alternative to deletion but usually a deletion also suffices. – The Grid (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is exactly you are referring to? What is the point you are trying to make about the height of the buildings or the size of the city? We see people not being impressed, but that is not the point. Not liking small city skylines is not a reason for deletion, tho that has been offered as reason in this discussion.Djflem (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given how the ten most recent closed AfDs about "List of tallest buildings in XXX" all ended in delete (Charleston, Charleston, Beaumont, Raipur, Greensboro, Szczecin, Lansing, Little Rock, Durham, and Columbia), I don't think this one will end differently. WP:NLIST requires the group to be discussed in-depth as a set in multiple reliable sources, and I don't really see how that is met. There are over 4,000 cities all over the world with population over 100,000, if we let these cities pass, I see no reason that others won't try to create similar pages for others, and that would be pretty hard to maintain. Honestly this kind of information should just be added to the article about the city itself. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the outcomes of those other AfDs were wrong and the more compatible GNG outcome would have been to retain those articles. Jack4576 (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    perhaps those AfDs were right. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who can say ! Jack4576 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOTS AND LOTS of "tallest buildings in AREA" articles have been at AFD in the past, and "Kept". I tend to think most or all of those mentioned here must have been bad decisions, should be and will be reverted in effect by re-creation of those lists. I may work on that myself. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The requirement for them to be discussed in-depth as a group would result in far more of the US cities for which there are such lists failing than are listed here. So why are they also not included? The Sunny Isles article, while citations can be improved (and I would do so if kept), is better referenced than most of them. Sources such as these 1 2 3 are certainly closer to discussions on tallest buildings in a city than most US cities with lists have. Fredlyfish4 (talk) Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They got height limits from nearby airports increased from a 649' (198 meters) limit to near 750' (230 meters), making those few tallest going up possibly the 'tallest oceanfront towers in the US' as that article states. B137 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - Most of the listed buildings are non-notable, and amounts to minor curiosities which don't need to be on Wikipedia. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    whether something 'needs' to be on WP or not is not relevant. WP is full of minor curiousities Jack4576 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ITSINTERESTING isn't a reason to keep something. If someone wants a blog recording the tallest structures in this or that city then by all means. But it's not encyclopedic. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ITSNOTINTERESTING isn't a reason to remove something either Jack4576 (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    >12000 pageviews in the past year suggests a decent amount of people out there find it interesting or are at least curious about the topic. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, ITSINTERESTING or ITSPOPULAR isn't a reason to keep. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:CSC, which does not require any articles on Wikipedia/notabilty to satisfy inclusion in a list. Djflem (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The buildings in Sunny Isles have been discussed together by at least one book 1, so other than personal sentiment there is no reason presented here for deletion. It is missing some of the newest buildings (which are discussed in individual sources, sometimes in reference to existing buildings), but in a rapidly developing place, requiring even brand new towers to be discussed would result in every single "list of" article failing. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Sunny Isles, or now shady isles, is a coastal tower suburb miles out of the Miami or Fort Lauderdale or even the Miami Beach urban areas. The incidental urban density is just a side effect of its high density investments, or what is coined "accidentally urban", or "forced urbanity".[New Suburbanism: Sustainable Tall Building Development] With a few more 200 meter plus towers, it should rank as a top 10 skyline in the US, with all oceanfront addresses from end to end of the town soon to be large towers over what was once known as motel row. B137 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, for reasons given in my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Syracuse, New York. [AFD which seems headed for "Keep, obviously".--Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)] Note also that Sunny Isles Beach, Florida (while the specific name of place seems unfamiliar to me) includes assertion "It is renowned for having the 14th tallest skyline in the United States despite its relatively low population." Related to my comments at the Syracuse AFD, an obvious alternative to deletion would be to merge the list of tallest buildings in Sunny Isles Beach to the Sunny Isles Beach article (i.e. to place the entire list there as a section, corroborating the "has a tall skyline" claim). And it would be an editing decision, okay to be undertaken at any time by decision of editors at its Talk page, to split that list back out again. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would be entirely unfair to delete the list of tallest buildings in Albany (capital of New York State) on basis of an AFD titled about a relatively unknown place such as Sunny Isles Beach (although the fact of there being tall skylines of beachside communities in Florida is more widely known). The naming of this AFD is in effect a sneaky try to delete stuff without proper scrutiny. An AFD titled about tallest buildings in Albany would obviously attract more !voters who would know that the AFD should be opposed. Above, I !vote Keep all, including for Sunny Isles Beach. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by the name of the AfD? They have always been based on the {{PAGENAME}} magicword. – The Grid (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I see what you mean now. AfD should have stayed with Sunny Isles Beach, it should have never added the other articles. – The Grid (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all none of these cities are known at all for having tall buildings; there is no reliable source that will collate data about the tallest building in random mid-sized American city. There is no inherent notability and encyclopedic-ness in such a topic; 14th tallest skyline is barely a thing and can be included in two sentences in the city article. The only places with "buildings by height" articles should be places that are known for having tall buildings: major metropolises like NYC or Shanghai where there is SIGCOV specifically of the fact that there are a lot of tall buildings in said city. AryKun (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying all cities in the US except the 13 above Sunny Isles with such lists should be deleted as well? Based on your opinion that these are random cities and despite there being reliable sources discussing them as a group? Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect at least for buildings over 150 meters (492 or 500 ft), or even down to about 100 meters (328 ft) in domestic western areas. There is a reliable source, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, CTBUH, that not only categorizes cities' lists and geographical lists, but that also uses databases or FAA filings to correct the actual height of as built buildings, not just the initial height claims a proposed new building has. B137 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other articles should have never been added to this AfD. I would be ok with a procedural close to separate these articles to separate AfDs. – The Grid (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:The Grid seems to be suggesting they will open 5 more AFDs after this AFD is closed. That would not be okay: the articles on five cities Albany NY, Camden NJ, Arlington VA, Rochester MN, and North Hudson NY have in fact been addressed, several with specific comments and all by the more general arguments. And here is more specifics: they each have one or more buildings over 100 meters, which is a very round number and has been a proposed cutoff for obviousness of notability of individual buildings in the past. Albany is distinct for having tallest buildings in NY outside NYC, and being capitol. Camden (across from Philadelphia), North Hudson (the skyline on the Palisades across from NYC), and Arlington VA are natural locations for clusters of tall buildings outside the major cities they adjoin. About Arlington: "Due to the height restrictions imposed in Washington D.C., many of the tallest buildings in the D.C metropolitan area are constructed in Arlington, right across the Potomac River from Washington." (Quote from its article). About Rochester MN, the 3rd biggest city in MN and home of the Mayo Clinic, it is in fact unusual because of the tallness of its buildings for a city of its modest size. It may be implied it has the highest ratio in the nation, or the tallest buildings of all cities in its size range, i am not sure. Anyhow, these are all valid lists, which readers expect Wikipedia to have. It would be weird/wrong to delete any one of them. Also all the other general reasons apply. Including they are valid editing splits off of articles about their cities; and they are valid splits out of "list of Tallest buildings in the United States", which like other huge lists can naturally be split by geographical areas. So, you had your potentally devious shot at deleting them for sake of deleting them (or for IDONTLIKEIT) and the answer is no, and it is not okay to immediately open 2nd or 3rd or 4th AFDs about them (nor should such AFDs ever be opened). -Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why The Grid (or others) should be forbidden to open multiple AfDs (though he did not sound like he was going to do that). He was instead recommending that the group AfD be closed and the articles be discussed on a case by case basis which is 100% valid. You have made your own viewpoints clear, but each article can be argued on its own merits, if a closer seeks to procedurally close. Natg 19 (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I meant with my vote. When you group these as one, it's going to lead to what we're going to see: a "no consensus" result. The outcome to List of tallest buildings in [Place] lists have never been straight forward, they always have been on a case-by-case basis. Also, to answer @Doncram, why are you suggesting that I would proceed with AfDs after this? Much less, assuming I want these all deleted? The grouping is a bad form for this AfD, period. That's the main issue. – The Grid (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The closer can prove either or both of us wrong, but IMHO the correct result based on quality of arguments here is "Keep all". No one is forbidden from opening AFDs in the future, but IMHO it still would be wrong to waste others' time again. The topics have been discussed enough, and you (plural) have taken your shot. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand when I say "no consensus" it means the same as a "keep". – The Grid (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some people also seem to suggest here that Sunny Isles is some random small suburb. The area between Miami and Fort Lauderdale is composed of many smaller cities, but it is one continuous, relatively dense urban area, and that is particularly the case around Sunny Isles. It is just a relatively geographically small city with a ton of very tall buildings, but the surrounding cities, particularly Aventura, Hallandale Beach, Bal Harbor, etc, have dozens (hundreds?) of smaller high rises (~20+ stories) still exceeding heights of many buildings in some of the other cities' articles, but no one would consider creating an article for. If these were all one city, I doubt this would be receiving the same criticism. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the fact that the relative obscurity of "Sunny Isles Beach" name contributed to this list being targeted by deletionists. If there is a general name for part or all of the coastline between Miami and Ft. Lauderdale ("northeast Dade County"?), it would perhaps be good for editors to move and expand the article to cover the longer stretch of territory, after this AFD is concluded. The AFD close should not dictate that, it is just something editors could discuss at the Talk page. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Given all the large buildings, a list with details is notable. I would recommend keep for all the lists with North Hudson being questionable with only 2 entries on Wikipedia. Patapsco913 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Following this relisting and all the previous comments, I have updated the Sunny Isles article with more context and references. The article does not rely on any unreliable sources. Multiple sources have been added that discuss these buildings in aggregate, satisfying LISTN. Many other sources added throughout support the notability of this article. Whether the other cities should be deleted (or better, merged), should be listed individually. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for developing that. As I suggest above already, I think the other cities have been defended adequately too. In my opinion wp:BEFORE was not performed adequately for Sunny Isles Beach and for the others too. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wish this was not a group nom, but as a whole the article can meet WP:CLN AOAL for nav purposes.  // Timothy :: talk  21:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has been improved including comparing its high rank to US and other Florida skylines, but is misleading in saying it's only 'near the top' in number of 'high rises' (>80 meters/250 ft) per city in FL, when in fact it is by far the second tallest skyline in Florida, where other cities like Fort Lauderdale and Orlando have zero buidlings in the List of tallest buildings in Florida, while Sunny Isles has at least eight, soon to be 12, Miami has more than 50, and Tampa and Jacksonville only have one or two each, while the other major cities of Orlando and FTL have 0. While it has no office towers or true downtown, a few of its buildings are architecturally striking and designed by 'starchitects', while also pushing over 200 meters (650 ft), the strictest cutoff height for true skyscrapers. B137 (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C-Sick

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, after posting a WP:BLPPROD the article now has one source and but it still reads like a resume. Did WP:BEFORE and was unable to find anything that would help this article pass WP:ARTIST. Article claims that C-Sick was nominated for a Grammy in 2019 for an album he and 32 other people helped produce. I don't think just being a producer on an album passes WP:ARTIST. As for the Grammy nomination this is not true, the album was not nominated for a Grammy according the list of winners and nominated albums on the awards website. "2019 GRAMMY Awards: Complete Nominees And Winners List". www.grammy.com. Retrieved 2023-05-17. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 21:34, 17 May 2023 (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. Good research by Cunard; hopefully you will consider adding some of those sources to the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Fair (1978 TV series)

Vanity Fair (1978 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable, tagged for such since 2018. Nothing to support notability found in a BEFORE, but since "Vanity Fair" is a difficult search topic I am sending it here to see if anything can be found to save this article. If not, then it should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 15 May 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy the Greek (restaurant)

AfDs for this article:
Jimmy the Greek (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is not much media coverage that justifies the inclusion of Jimmy the Greek on Wikipedia. It is just a fast food franchise with locations in many malls in the Greater Toronto Area, BC and Alberta. That doesn't make it notable. There is no significant media coverage and most media coverage is trivial. 747pilot (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baker's Dozen Donuts

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

Not notable- there is very little, if any media coverage about Baker's Dozen Donuts. This is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. 747pilot (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2023 (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. Consensus is that sourcing is of insufficient depth to meet N:ORG Star Mississippi 02:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osmow's Shawarma

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

Osmow's is not notable- there is very little significant media coverage, if any about it. Most media coverage is trivial. It is a small family-business with a handful of locations in Canada. Most information about Osmow's comes from the company itself, or places like Narcity, which are only talking about their food promotions and not why this company is notable. There are fast food places like Shanghai 360 or Villa Madina, which are similar to this one and have a few locations in Canada, and they are not notable enough either (and don't have their own articles on Wikipedia). Therefore, I think that this article should be deleted due to a lack of notability. 747pilot (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose this motion.
Firstly, I'm not really sure what your definition of "a handful" is. Using your chosen stores for comparison, Villa Madina has 24 locations nationwide, and Shanghai 360 has 22 nationwide. Both of those brands mostly operate within mall food courts. Shanghai 360 doesn't even have a website. Therefore, it makes sense that there is no article about them. I fail to see how they're "similar" to Osmow's in any way. Osmow's, on the other hand, has over 140 locations, and it keeps opening new stores rather quickly. Since this article was written, there's a new location that opened in Winnipeg and that hasn't been updated yet in the article. Not only that, they tend to open a lot of stores in small towns that would never have known what shawarma is and the company has been important in introducing shawarma to the wider Canadian society. I'm not sure how that isn't notable.
Osmow's has also done advertising campaigns that are pretty much unheard from companies of its size, including the NBA Finals commercial that was mentioned in the article.
There are a bunch of articles on Wikipedia on Canadian chains that have less locations, less sources, and frankly a large number of them would also have to be deleted if going by the criteria that you listed.
Secondly, with regards to sourcing, there are other sources that detail its history and its growth that are in the references section of the article. There are only two articles that are about food promotions.
Andrepoiy (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrepoiy: just because they have 140 stores doesn't mean they are notable. See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Notice that a lot of the media coverage is trivial. It's not substantial. Places like Tim Hortons have substantial media coverage and they are notable. But this fast food restaurant just isn't notable. 747pilot (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously some information in the article comes from various interviews over time. But that to say it entirely relies on information provided by the company is false. Why would the company have provided the Mississauga News information about the business winning the 2018 Mississauga News award? That just doesn't make sense. The article meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relist. Let’s form a stronger consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just cos you wish to ignore NCORP (which provides detailed explanations and examples of how to interpret GNG for companies) doesn't mean that you can interpret GNG in a less meaningful manner and then claim the article meets the criteria for establishing notability. The article is advertorial, relying entirely on an interview with company execs. It is not independent. If you think otherwise, that's your perogative - but others will disagree and the closing admin will weigh everything according to consensus and applicable guidelines. HighKing++ 13:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Smoke Burger

AfDs for this article:
Big Smoke Burger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Big Smoke Burger is not really notable. It doesn't stand out like other burger chains like Five Guys. It is not a large chain and there is not much media coverage about it. I do not think it is notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. 747pilot (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sevin Okyay

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

Won this award, but can't find any other evidence of notability. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Bruxton (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Young Drivers of Canada

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

A driving school is not notable. There are almost none, if any Wikipedia articles about specific driving schools/driving school franchises. Although Young Drivers may be the biggest in Canada, it doesn't really meet the notability guideline. Other countries may have driving schools on their scale but they're still not notable enough for Wikipedia. 747pilot (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for such personal attacks @Nfitz:. I have already withdrawn the nomination. 747pilot (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see, User:Renamed user b12u3ewq1561 that noting something is a big BEFORE failure is a personal attack. It's about what you did - not about you. I certainly don't see it as personal attack, nor meant it to be taken that way. Now, if you'd talked about how you'd scoured the Internet and Proquest, but failed to find sources, it might be a personal attack - but I see no indication in the discussion that there was a proper BEFORE attempt. Nfitz (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen (Armstrong novel)

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

Same as Broken (Armstrong novel). No independent sources. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Women's Bandy World Championship squads

2020 Women's Bandy World Championship squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of non-notable sportspeople with no indication of meeting WP:LISTN nor any actual benefit to the encyclopaedia. PROD would likely be contested based on some similar PRODs that I've done recently. I oppose merging to 2020 Women's Bandy World Championship on the basis that the article is completely unsourced. I can't think of any good reason to keep this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Orru

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

Semi-pro Scottish footballer with no evidence to support a claim to WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. The interview cited in the article is published by Dunfermline Athletic, his employer at the time, so is clearly not independent. In my WP:BEFORE, I found Daily Record 1 and Daily Record 2, both of which are trivial mentions. This player is an internet-era footballer in a developed country. If significant coverage is not found online then I highly doubt that he is notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Trevor Jacob. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Jacob plane crash

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

Insufficient standalone notability. Although the NTSB report has not been issued as I write this, given what we know already, it's clear that the crash was caused entirely by the actions of the pilot; the airplane, the ATC system, FAA regulations, and so forth had little or nothing to do with it. Thus, discussion of the crash boils down to the actions of the man, which belong in the Trevor Jacob article. Most content of this article duplicates that article already, and the remainder can easily be merged with it. Carguychris (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having the separate page allows for more detailed discussion of the incident than a profile page, especially for someone like Trevor Jacob who is also notable for other reasons. There will naturally be info about the incident on Jacob's page, but having a page specifically for the incident allows for more liberty to expand the page as needed. The incident is also very well covered, including by a wide range of very-well-known national news organizations, suggesting that the event is particularly notable even outside of aviation and is worth more than just a subsection on another page. Slowtationjet (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that the article about the crash itself is almost as long as Trevor Jacob's personal page. I feel like this proves that it's worth having a dedicated space to expand more upon the crash itself and use Jacob's personal page to flesh out all of his escapades, including other things such as his snowboarding career.Slowtationjet (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...[this page] is almost as long as Trevor Jacob's personal page.
— User:Slowtationjet

Both pages are relatively short by recent BLP standards, and this page is almost as long as Jacob's personal page mainly because it delves into minor details such as the strap-on fire extinguisher and altimeter. Almost all of the important facts are duplicated, and adding all the minor ones to his personal page would only lengthen it by a few sentences. Cheers. Carguychris (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it also has the same number of notable independent sources Slowtationjet (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources extensively discuss Trevor Jacob the YouTuber, the strange things he did, and the controversial video he posted. I have yet to see a single article or video about this crash that doesn't discuss these things. It's effectively impossible to disentangle the plane crash from his actions, which is why I think this page is a textbook example of WP:CFORK and should be merged. Carguychris (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody died. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not applicable in this case as there was no death involved. - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm adding additional sources to the article. it's overly notable as its own article. it's covered widely and has received significant international attention. as much as Jacob's personal page mentions the crash, the fact remains that this incident is incredibly notable in its own right and deserves its own space to be discussed in the amount of depth that a dedicated page provides. Slowtationjet (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the issue with this article is not a lack of references, it is that it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Adding even more refs won't address that problem. - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that, Jacob's career as a YouTuber is central to the whole incident. A career much better discussed in a biography, were the broader context for the crash becomes clear. There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy that mandates having a separate article for a 'notable incident' that only occurred because someone was trying to boost their Wikipedia-notable career. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This 2013 nonfatal general aviation accident used to have a Wikipedia article with plenty of references, yet the article was AfD'd. General consensus in the Wikipedia aviation community is that nonfatal general aviation crashes are not notable on a standalone basis unless the event somehow affects aviation as a whole, and even then, the bar is pretty high if there's another logical place to summarize what happened—such as the biography article about the Wikinotable pilot, who by all accounts is entirely at fault, for reasons that can be summarized in a few sentences. Carguychris (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per Ahunt's !vote above. CONTENTFORK that has no reason to exist. The plane crash is relevant to the Trevor Jacob article and should be merged there. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that "merge or delete" is not possible; we can do either but not both.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of 'merge and delete' seems clear to me. What exactly is the problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I first used then term here, to clarify, "merge and delete" means first take any useful content from this article that is not already at Trevor Jacob and add it there, then delete this article, as it is not really needed as a redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I can't really see what else it could mean. Functionally the same as 'merge', except in as much as it avoids the sort of silly arguments I've seen occasionally where people claim that a 'merge' !vote isn't support for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Producer Bazaar

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

PROMO for a non-notable platform, sources are all PR-related. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A quick search of the website shows nothing notable. In fact, traffic is so low to the website that their social media accounts appear first before their official website. Hadal1337 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ararat Aleksanyan

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

Not meeting GNG and uses flowery language. The art was gaining critical notice, yet we have no (and I can't find) sources that discuss it, other than sales sites. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are references to the exhibitions, the language that used may be improved. There are so many articles on Wikipedia, that are only 2-3 sentences, and not marked for deletion, I don't thinnk the work that I done should be evoluated like you did it. I don't agree with you, sorry Noobsaiboth (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Comment - In an online BEFORE search I found nothing to confer notability in the English language. When I searched his name in Armenian, Արարատ Ալեքսանյան, I found one short news story in the Armenian Times about the car-motorcycle crash in which he was tragically killed by a drunk driver.[8]. There were few items in Armenian that look like user-submitted content like this: [9]; and social media postings and his accounts. I'm leaning towards d*lete, but will continue to see if any SIGCOV can be found. The article seems like a memorial page containing a lot of unsourced detailed information so if there is COI involved it may be a friend or family member with a misunderstanding of the purpose of the encyclopedia. (Forgive me if that seems harsh.) If he actually was notable, one would think the art press would publish an obituary. Will keep looking before formally !voting. Netherzone (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was speaking of the May 5 additions, some in Armenian. I didn't look at the age of the page. I've done some edits for encyclopedic language on the page and removed some of the flowery language mentioned in the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not finding any reliable sources for the biographical information (birth and death date etc.) nor am I finding any sources for the "Life and work" section. Let the author deal with this in the draft version of this article (Draft:Ararat Aleksanyan). It looks like the editor created in draft space, then incorrectly moved to main space. No signs that any experienced editors were involved with this article written by an SPA. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tried in earnest to find significant coverage in reliable sources on this artist, in both English and Armenian. Unfortunately I could find nothing in addition to the four sources currently in the article. A source analysis revealed that all four are low quality sources: 1) a short segment on him in a YouTube video on a local TV station titled "Well I'm not successful either!", among other artists in a group show; 2) A press release from for a show on a person's blog; 3) short segment in a YouTube video on a local channel featuring several artists in a group show 4) a short description on a local tourism website of a gallery he apparently showed in that does not mention him at all. It seems that the two video sources were used on Solo shows however it seems they were actually group shows. None of these sources support notability criteria to pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. The only other things I found in a BEFORE search were social media and user submitted content. Netherzone (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fresco Pictures

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

unsourced for well over a decade, and tagged for notability since 2019. The generic name could be hiding some legitimate sources on the internet, which hopefully will be discovered during this discussion if they exist. ~TPW 18:48, 17 May 2023 (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. It has been demonstrated and there is consensus that the topic does not meet either WP:PROF or WP:GNG, with no in-depth sources provided to confer notability.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Minenna

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

Distinct lack of third-party reliable sources cited, possible autobiography (or possibly just based on one). It's possible more and better sources exist in Italian, but considering the subject's article was deleted from itwiki, that seems unlikely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HJ Mitchell, I hope I can give you a few insights on who is Marcello Minenna and his career.
Minenna is a renowned economist, author of 100+ papers, whose contributions in this field were quoted by many scholars and academics, both Italian and international. He is also quoted within en wikipedia's pages.
He is top-ranked on SSRN www.ssrn.com and he is quoted in The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=%22Marcello%2BMinenna%22, Jstor https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22marcello+minenna%22 etc.
Furthermore, Minenna writes regularly as a Sunday columnist on the first page of Il Sole 24 Ore https://argomenti.ilsole24ore.com/marcello-minenna.
He contributes as well as a columnist on the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-brussels-rome-dispute-1540335781, The Financial Times https://www.ft.com/stream/b070a237-36a9-33bb-8bbd-171d851b45b0 OMFIF https://www.omfif.org/2018/07/finding-solutions-to-target-2-dilemma/, and Social Europe https://www.socialeurope.eu/author/marcello-minenna.
Therefore, while I certainly agree that the page must be improved, I believe that this article must not be deleted. Mm941 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC) — Mm941 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NOT Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelino12 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I contributed on both pages; actually the Italian page has been deleted following POV pushes (both defamatory and celebratory) and edit wars, mainly in the paragraph about judicial controversy. The same paragraph here was subject to POV and vandalism. Btw the same day of the deletion an article in an Italian newspaper was published [10] that states that Minenna was "kicked off" by Wikipedia. It is clear that WP kicks off nobody.
My intention is to rewrite Minenna's page shortly. In fact, according to Italian guidelines, notability derives for example directly from his regular activity as columnist on the front page of the main Italian economic newspaper. The page had been on itwiki for many years (here since 2011). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelino12 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Michelino12 I agree, this article should not be deleted. I have noticed, though, that many of the links aren't working. I'll try my best to provide the correct links. BlackjackAK (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)— BlackjackAK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As I have allready stated: DO NOT DELETE BlackjackAK (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of the article does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:PROFESSOR or WP:AUTHOR. There does not appear to be any substantive coverage of the subject in RS. Thenightaway (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thenightaway
I have created the page at the end of 2011. Let me firstly anticipate that Minenna has definitely an encyclopedic profile according to wikipedias' guidelines.
WP:AUTHOR requirements are satisfied since he writes regularly on IlSole24ore on the first page and on Financial Times. WP:PROFESSOR also since his reseraches are largely cited and also recalled here on several WP pages.
It is not a case that the article has been on WP since 2011 until now.
Unfortunately by looking at the modifications overtime I realised that the page has been vandalised and ruined in several aspects. There are several unregistered users that damage the discussions and the article.
I will try to improve it, but please do NOT DELETE the page. Olivc75 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC) — Olivc75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do NOT Delete.
I heard yesterday Prof. Minenna at the Economy Festival of Trento (see https://www.festivaleconomia.it/it/relatore/marcello-minenna). He offered an interesting speech in a roundtable on Real Economy and Banking crisis. Last year again at the festival he was a distinguished speaker too (see https://www.festivaleconomia.it/sites/default/files/2022-06/_Programma_FdE.pdf) in a round table with Jean-Claude Trichet on central banking policy.
Definitely his wiki page and annexed discussions have been subject to vandalism unfortunately and not well maintained. I will try to help. Geco23 (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC) — Geco23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Anemic citation record does not rise to the level of WP:PROF notability. None of the accomplishments touted in such extravagent detail in the article look particularly noteworthy. And we have no sources that would pass WP:GNG or verify those accomplishments: nothing that is in-depth, reliably published, and independent of the subject. The parade of single-purpose accounts on view in this AfD (one of whom claims to be the same as long-inactive SPA Olive75 (talk · contribs), who created the article) and the parade of even more SPAs on view in the article history also does not make a convincing case for notability (somewhat the opposite). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Civil servant like thousands, not remarkable for things DONE.--Carlo Dani (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Thompson

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

Article about former semi-pro footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. BLPPROD was contested by adding a single piece of non-independent, primary coverage that contributes nothing to SIGCOV. The sources available online are almost entirely from his college, its conference or his clubs - none of which are independent of the subject. The secondary coverage is entirely routine/trivial stuff like match reports and a Baltimore Sun piece that barely touches on him. He's been named to conference teams of the week by Collegesoccernews.com but its trivial coverage. Jogurney (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Benard

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of subject. Note that having notable parents does not make one notable as per WP:INVALIDBIO. Socksage (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rubén González Sosa

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

Biography of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for diplomats. As always, every diplomat is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists or existed, and instead diplomats only get articles if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but existence is the only notability claim being made here, and the only sources are a short biographical blurb on one page of a book with over 2,000 pages and a very brief blurb about his death in a source that isn't even dated at all in order to replace the incorrect Category:Living people (which I've already removed) with an actual death year category.
The article further asserts that he was a politician, but says absolutely nothing about any political roles he might have held to determine whether he would pass WP:NPOL or not.
This is not enough sourcing to secure the notability of a diplomat all by itself, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable to exempt him from having to have more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2023 (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 02:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protests against the green agenda

Protests against the green agenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be predicated on grouping together various different protests and movements that have little to do with each other other than that they took place in 2022 to claim them as some sort of pan-European movement against the "green agenda", which itself is a very charged title (WP:SYNTH, policy-wise?). Probably the ones that are most closely linked here are a number of ones listed that appear directly inspired by the Dutch farmers' protests (such as those mentioned in Germany and Spain), but none of those appear to be anywhere near as large as their inspiration, nor do they have their own articles. Maybe these sections could be merged with the articles on the Dutch protests, but I think that might be all here that's salvageable.

Aside from that, the headlines on the 66 sources that appears to mention these events in pan-European terms is this one, which again is solely related to the farmer protests. The other protests listed include among others, protests for wage increases in Belgium, the Yellow vests protests (which began years before anything else here) and the UK government crisis, which isn't even a social movement, nor is it tied to one. --Totalibe (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote this article in the summer of 2022, of course my biggest inspiration was the farmers' protests in the Netherlands. However, when the wave of protests swept Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy and Poland, I saw that the problem is not only the Dutch government and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, but a much deeper problem that requires a much broader picture. I believe that this article should not be deleted but updated and supplemented, e.g. about the shocking defeat of the Dutch government in the local elections in March this year. But also the shocking victory of the Dutch populist farmer party BBB. Such a development is precisely the result of the whims of a group of philanthropists from Davos who want to implement the reforms required by the "Green Agenda" at any cost, which apparently leave many people without work and without income, so they are dissatisfied and constantly protest. For example. the fall of Mario Draghi's government in Italy was not a consequence of either the Anti-COVID or the sanctions policy towards Russia, but the result of the fall of the Italian government was a conflict with farmers and farmers who protested due to the sudden drop in the price of milk, and the rise in the prices of food and other products, the cause of which precisely the "Green Agenda". What do we have in Italy today? We have a hard populist, extremely conservative, right-wing and somewhat neo-fascist government. In France and Germany and Belgium and Spain and partly in Poland, there were large protests by farmers who oppose the policy of the Green Party in Germany, whose holders are Robert Habeck and Analena Berbock, the current German foreign minister. In France, Macron is also someone who is a supporter of the "Green Agenda", and from the beginning he has been under fire and in conflict with the majority of his citizens because without some unpopular reforms he cannot implement the "Green Agenda" in full and we are witnessing that he withdraws increasingly undemocratic measures that cause anger and riots on French streets. Poland is still unknown to me in terms of protests because I'm not sure that Morawiecki's right-wing populist government has ceded its sovereignty too much to the controversial "Green Agenda" unlike Western Europe and Germany. Perhaps the part of the article related to Poland should be removed as well as to the Czech Republic where "Protests against inflation" started. But in addition to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic, the fact is that the "Green Agenda" is one of the causes of inflation and the economic crisis in Europe, because its activation requires the shutdown of heavy industry, the abolition of fossil fuels, the killing of millions of cattle, the extinguishing of tens of thousands farms, the production of artificial meat (which Bill Gates intends), the interruption of the distribution of mining and processing of heavy metals, and this leaves millions of people without work and money. Certainly, the greatest resistance to the "Green Agenda" is in the Netherlands, France and Germany, while in Italy it failed with the fall of Draghi's government and the coming to power of right-wing populists who are absolute opponents. It may be a "Green Agenda" policy, but it has not completely disappeared because its proponents continue to promote it through the left-wing opposition, which is still strong. In France, the extreme left and right oppose the policies of Macron, who is Davos' right-hand man. In Germany, the "Green Agenda" holds power, and then in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Austria, where President Van Der Bellen is a member of the Green Party. Only in Eastern and Central Europe is there still not as strong an organized resistance to the "Green Agenda" as in Western Europe, where it has begun to be widely implemented. The "Green Agenda" probably has a lot of its advantages in terms of ecology, but unfortunately also a lot of harmful economic effects due to which people in France, the Netherlands, Germany and to a lesser extent in Spain are fiercely resisting. As for the fall of Boris Johnson's government, you are probably right. Its decline is not related to the "Green Agenda" policy, but to the CONSEQUENCES of BREXIT, Anti-Covid measures and policies towards Ukraine. That should be deleted. My mistake. — Baba Mica (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Change this pages name to -> Protests against Green Politics. Current title is too value-laden. Jack4576 (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Piotrus, you pinged me, then went on to support my point by referring to broad academic articles. Also in the news media comparisons exist. We stand here firmly on the shoulders of others. gidonb (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't even recall it being a cohesive "thing" and whatever notability it had has fizzled. This seems to be a synthesis/OR article, about things that never happened. Each protest might be notable by itself, but there wasn't and isn't something as cohesive as a Green Wave or what have you that ever happened. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't taken the time to read the article fully, but from a glance this seems like WP:ADVOCACY or WP:SYNTH. I would support a draftify and probably delete. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you hold on for another day when I have more time? What's not clear to you? Protests against the green agenda (politics) are not happening? Farmers are not protesting all over Europe? If you are a representative of that policy, you cannot tell me that something is not happening that is happening in real time. The article should be edited, not deleted. Perhaps the date should be moved from June 10, 2022 to October 1, 2019, when the farmers' protests began in the Netherlands, rather than mid-2022 when they escalated across Europe. I explained everything in the comment above which I guess you didn't even read. — Baba Mica (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearian. This article doesn't distinguish between farmers' protests and general anti-government protests, pure soap with no coherent article topic. Jdcooper (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2023 (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. – Joe (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken (Armstrong novel)

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

No sources outside of goodreads etc. Most of the sources found upon searching 'broken novel' are not even this book. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. McMahon, Donna (2006). "Broken". SF Site. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.

      The review notes: "So I found the story growing tedious as it devolved into a cycle: the heroes discuss their options, attempt a strategy, discover something that makes the problem more complicated, fight for their lives, eat, have sex, sleep, then discuss their options again, and so forth. It soon seemed inevitable that our protagonist would end up alone and in peril, and sure enough, Armstrong eventually contrives to extricate Elena from her pack of werewolf bodyguards so she can fight alone. ... Fans of action may also enjoy this book -- there are lots of fights and chases. And Armstrong provides some candid pointers on how to have hot sex in the third trimester, which some readers will no doubt delight in and others are liable to find a turn-off. I found that all the action was plot-driven and none of the characters engaged me enough to keep me interested in the outcome."

    2. Crutcher, Wendy. "Broken by Kelley Armstrong". The Romance Reader. Archived from the original on 2007-03-09. Retrieved 2023-05-18.

      The review notes: "This is an engaging entry to highly readable series. Armstrong continues to write strong female leads, and even introduces a new one – a vampire named Zoë who has a lot of fun potential. Elena continues to be strong – content and ready to move on to a new phase in her life. Readers who became so engaged with her in the first two novels will certainly enjoy this return visit."

      The Romance Reader was published and edited by D.N. Anderson and has Cathy Sova as a senior editor. Here is more information about The Romance Reader, which I consider to be a reliable source:

      1. "Favorite Web sites: www.theromancereader.com". The Tampa Tribune. 1999-06-14. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Readers of romance fiction have a difficult task separating the wonderful from the dreadful in their genre. The often-embarrassing cover art and the always-inaccurate jacket blurbs offer little guidance to a discriminating reader. Thank goodness for The Romance Reader, which offers an independent assessment of many new releases, judged on a scale of one to five hearts. There also are columns, including "My top 10 favorite romances of all time" by several authors, including LaVyrle Spencer and Susan Elizabeth Phillips."

      2. "The net". Star Tribune. 1999-01-15. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Web hits » http://www.theromancereader.com. If you're a romance novel junkie, The Romance Reader has all the love and kisses you could ever pine for. The core of the site is its book reviews (more than 1,000). Authors can respond to reviews of their work. Check interviews with numerous romance writers, lists of new releases, readers' recommendations and something called Road Stories — a collection of hilarious tales from authors about book signings and other memorable moments."

      3. Perrault, Anna H. (2013). "Literature and Literary Studies". In Perrault, Anna H.; Aversa, Elizabeth S. (eds.). Information Resources in the Humanities and the Arts, 6th Edition. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio. p. 158. ISBN 978-1-59884-832-8. Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "5-146. The Romance Reader. http://theromancereader.com. It has only been in recent years that romance novels have been taken seriously by those who don't read them, even though they are the most popular form of genre fiction with over half of mass market paperback fiction being romance novels. This site is one of the oldest review sites and it is organized into contemporary, historical, paranormal, series, and eclectic. The reviews rank the works according to one to five hearts. Other features are author interviews and a section where readers can ask questions and get answers. The site can help readers and librarians alike to be "in the know.""

      4. Bielke-Rodenbiker, Jean (2013). "Review Sources for Mystery Fiction". In Overmier, Judith; Taylor, Rhonda Harris (eds.). Managing the Mystery Collection: From Creation to Consumption. New York: Routledge. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-7890-3153-2. Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Google Books.

        This book source is about The Mystery Reader, which like The Romance Reader is also edited by D.N. Anderson. The book notes: "The Mystery Reader: http://www.themysteryreader.com. Companion to the Romance Reader site, this Web site is edited by D.N. Anderson. ... This site is one of the most often linked to by other sites: It's been around awhile and is a credible resource for mystery reviews."

    3. Grimwood, John Courtenay (2006-06-09). "Murderous impulses". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.

      The review notes: "A new book featuring werewolf heroine Elena Michaels should be good news for fans. And, at first, all the signs are promising. In return for revealing the hiding place of a serial killer, half-demon Xavier requires Elena, her lover Clay and their boss Jeremy to steal a letter written by Jack the Ripper. It seems a fair deal, until the letter opens a portal to the past and assorted 19th-century zombies start ruining Toronto's more exclusive districts. This is Buffy territory, now colonised by half-a-dozen US novelists, of which Armstrong is one of the best."

    4. "Kelly Armstrong – Broken" (PDF). Vector. July–August 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.

      The review is listed here by the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. The review notes: "The sixth volume in Armstrong’s Women of the Otherworld series sees the return of the werewolf Elena Michaels, last seen in the second volume, Stolen (reviewed in Vector 233). This one sounds fascinating with Elena persuaded to steal Jack the Ripper’s ‘From Hell’ letter from a collector, which inadvertently opens a portal back to Victorian London. Oh, and our hero is pregnant. Which has sold it to me. Colin Odell and Mitch Le Blanc have reviewed much of this series, finding it at the front of this Buffyesque genre and strengthening with each volume."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Broken to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the validity. For example, #3 doesn't have Broken as the main subject, which seems to be required by the crit. I will leave that review process to others. Cunard, where do you find these sources from? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sungodtemple (talk · contribs). I found these searches through Google Books, Google, and Newspapers.com searches and through checking the book's entry in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. The Romance Reader review was in an earlier version of the article before being removed as a dead link. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2023 (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. – Joe (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She Is the Darkness

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

Only refs are publishers, distributors, goodreads, etc. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. MacLaurin, Wayne (October 1997). "She Is The Darkness: A Novel of the Black Company". SF Site. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.

      The review is listed here by the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. The review notes: "I invite you to journey with Croaker, The Lady, One-Eye, Soulcatcher and Longshadow and the rest of the most bizarre collection of mercenaries and villains ever conceived. If you've read the others, She Is The Darkness is a great ride. If you want to experience what the Black Company is, I strongly recommend you start at the beginning. Like all great, complex stories, this one is just too confusing to jump in mid-way."

    2. Bird, Colin (March–April 1998). "She Is The Darkness" (PDF). Vector. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.

      The review is listed here by the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. The review notes: "It's difficult, as always, to review the second volume in a fantasy sequence when one is unfamiliar with the backstory, but in this case Cook's She Is the Darkness is anything but a plot-choked middle volume. Cook is no prose stylist and the scatalogical modern dialogue is a bracing change from the normal off-the-shelf archaic dialects that so many fantasy writers use without thinking."

    3. "She Is the Darkness". Kirkus Reviews. 1997-07-15. p. 1074. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.

      The review is listed here. The review notes: "... whose evil plots unfold against a landscape so bleak and blasted by war and magic that readers can't help but wonder where, for instance, the Company's food comes from, or who can afford to pay them. Fascinating, no doubt, for the fans; all but impenetrable to outsiders."

    4. "She Is the Darkness". Publishers Weekly. 1997-09-22. p. 74. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.

      The review is listed here. The review notes: "The distinctively non-Western flavor of much of the mythology is also welcome. Large parts of the book read like a collaboration between Michael Moorcock and the late John Masters, dean of historical novels of the British Raj. Indeed, the book offers virtually anything a fantasy reader could ask for, except a coherent narrative that stands on its own."

    5. White, Bill (April 1998). "She Is the Darkness review from Voice of Youth Advocates". Voice of Youth Advocates. p. 53.

      The review is mentioned in an advertisement here and in an Encyclopedia.com article here. The review notes: "[Cook] describes the villany of the Company's antagonists with extraordinary power ... fans of the Black Company will relish this novel."

    6. "Cook, Glen 1944–". Encyclopedia.com. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.

      The article notes: "Volume two of the "Glittering Stone" series, She Is the Darkness, once again takes up the tale of the Company as the group moves closer toward discovery of its mystical origins when it reaches the city of Khatovar. It becomes a race against time once the Company's demonic enemies begin to kill off members as a way of preventing those origins from being revealed. Bill White, in Voice of Youth Advocates praised the novel's "complex and sophisticated story," and noted that the author "describes the villainy of the Company's antagonists with extraordinary power." Roland Green in Booklist called She Is the Darkness "wrenchingly realistic in both the details of war and the emotions of the characters.""

    7. Green, Roland (1997-09-15). "She Is the Darkness". Booklist. Vol. 94, no. 2. p. 216. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "Wrenchingly realistic in both the details of war and the emotions of the characters and drawing eclectically but intelligently on dozens of different elements, the book still doesn't constitute a smooth narrative, simply because there are, after six preceding Black Company yarns, so many characters and elements that only devout followers of the saga possess the knowledge to make full sense of it. But those followers are numerous."

    8. ""She Is the Darkness" comes to Iranian bookstores". Tehran Times. 2019-08-13. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.

      The article notes: "She Is the Darkness, the 7th novel in the The Black Company dark fantasy series written by American author Glen Cook, has recently been published in Persian by Tandis Publications in Tehran."

    9. Non-independent coverage:
      1. Flory, Graeme (2013-09-16). "The Black Company Reread: She is the Darkness". Tor.com. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.

        The book was published by Tor Books, which is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers, which owns Tor.com, so this magazine article is not independent. The review notes: "Having made it through She is the Darkness, I’d say that things are kind of back on the right track (in more ways than one). If Bleak Seasons was Crossroads of Twilight (trying to draw stuff together but not a lot actually happening) then She is the Darkness is Knife of Dreams (an unwieldy cast is prodded into moving towards a conclusion); there’s good stuff happening but it is slow work getting there… ... She is the Darkness is one hell of a slog to get through, for me anyway, as Cook really captures that long drawn out feeling of a siege that is going nowhere fast."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow She Is the Darkness to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Network

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

Corporate networking organization which evidently fails WP:NORG. Very short article provides almost no context at all. Could not find any sources of information online, partly due to many organizations with similar names and purposes also operating in the same area, such as ACG Chicago Women's Network, IWIRC Chicago Network, Ellevate Chicago's Network for Women, Chicago Booth Women's Network, the Chicago Network for Justice and Peace, and the Chicago Republican Women's Network. Article has no sources at all despite being more than a decade old. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Release (Angel)

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

Episode does not appear to be notable. I only found blog reviews in a BEFORE. Probably should be a REDIRECT, but it was redirected in 2022 and was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion. Should it be kept, deleted, or redirected? DonaldD23 talk to me 16:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of MexicanaClick destinations

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

Nominated for deletion per the 2018 RFC on airline destination lists as modified by the subsequent AN discussion which recommended nominating them for deletion in orderly fashion.

Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is a complete and exhaustive listing of all the services offered by a (now defunct) company as of a particular date in October 2007.

Also fails WP:CORP, since the only source cited is the defunct company's website. WP:BEFORE is optional, particularly where the main failing of the article is not only notability (though it does fail this per WP:CORP) but I did do a brief search and found nothing that would remedy the issue - just the usual aggregator sites, ticket-sales sites, fan-sites, and industry/specialist media outlets of dubious independence (see WP:ORGIND and WP:AUD). FOARP (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 02:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Young

AfDs for this article:
Geoff Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:NPOL. People do not become notable just for running as candidates in elections they have not won. The notability standard for politicians is holding a notable office, not just unsuccessfully running for one. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Full disclosure I participated in the last AFD and my vote is unchanged. I think strict enforcement of WP:NPOL on candidates is good since every cycle we get a lot of non-notable candidate articles. I still think Young is different because he's run so many times over a decade there is enough WP:SIGCOV out there to write an article and meet WP:GNG. This is like his ninth campaign, and I think him winning a nomination last cycle and the party refusing to endorse him is kinda notable. I'd like to see this article kept and improved instead of deleted this time.
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Young has been run so many times that he meets the WP:GNG. I think there is enough WP:SIGCOV, simply because he has run so many times, and that he claims that the Kentucky Democratic party has rigged primary elections against him. Along with the Kentucky Democratic party refusing to endorse him. FatCat96 (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have gone over this before. Running once or twice does not make one notable. Once a perenniel candidate runs more than 7 or 8 times he becomes notable. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TulsaPoliticsFan and Bearian. Although the subject fails criterion #1 of WP:NPOL, he passes criterion #2 having drawn significant coverage as a perennial candidate. Sal2100 (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: True, he does not meet WP:NPOL, but he does meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV due to him running so many times over the course of 10 years. FatCat96 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Speaking generally here, as I haven't taken a look at the article and as such will not be casting a !vote, but I vehemently disagree with the notion that (in general) simply being a longtime perennial candidate equates to notability. Curbon7 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Merely being a perennial candidate should not denote "automatic" notability. In this case, however, the subject has received significant coverage beyond mere routine campaign coverage. In part for his notoriety as a perennial candidate, and in part for his controversial conduct as a candidate (his own party's refusal to endorse him, his allegation of a rigged primary). It is for this reason that I (and apparently others) have concluded that he passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by car imports

List of countries by car imports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list seems to be highly misleading, in that it doesn't just list actual imports, but also transports: e.g. Belgium is high on the list because its ports are a place of entry for e.g. Swedish or Japanese cars which are then moved on towards other countries (with some fraction remaining in Belgium). Note how the value for Belgium on the other list, List of countries by car exports, is nearly identical, and much higher than the value of the actual car production in Belgium. Countries like Belgium (and Canada for that matter) have much more car exports than e.g. Italy or France? Lists sourced only to a Wordpress site, so if we want this, WP:TNT would apply.

Also nominated is List of countries by car exports. Fram (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Libyan Airlines destinations

List of Libyan Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for deletion per the 2018 RFC on airline destination lists as modified by the subsequent AN discussion which recommended nominating them for deletion in orderly fashion.

Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is a complete and exhaustive listing of all the services offered by a business, albeit one wholly owned by the Libyan government, at a specific point in time (apparently some point in 2011).

Also fails WP:CORP. The only sources cited here are routesonline.com, which is not independent as it is an organisation that works with the airline industry creating forums and media coverage for it, and a 404 link to the Shabablibya.org website which, being inaccessible, is impossible to assess (though based on archived versions of the site appears to have been the site of the Libyan Youth political movement and thus not an RS for this topic). A WP:BEFORE search uncovered nothing that could fix this. The best I could find was this short Libyan Herald article quoting the Libyan state news agency, who are in turn quoting Libyan Airlines. This is run-of-the-mill coverage that falls short of significant coverage of the destinations specifically (they are only mentioned in two sentences) and anyway the coverage is not independent since ultimately the source is Libyan Airlines themselves. Passing WP:CORP means having reliable, independent sources that meet the audience and independence requirements of WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jetstreamer, can you tell us which of those sources meets the requirements of WP:CORP (especially WP:ORGIND and WP:AUD) for this list of destinations specifically? That article does not have any data about destinations (the section on destination is blank and just includes a link to this page) so it is not clear what you are talking about. Additionally, can you say how WP:NOT does not apply here?
All I can tell you is that articles in the Tripoli Herald quoting Libyan Airlines officials, 404 links, non-sigcov catalogue listings, and industry publications listing run-of-the-mill (and typically WP:CRYSTALBALL) announcements about the purchase of aircraft only served to cast doubt on the sourcing of that article, and do nothing to rescue this one. And to re-iterate, both the WP:NOT and the WP:CORP issues need to be addressed together: you need to explain why the services of this particular company deserve a dedicated article listing all of them. FOARP (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The World Airlines Guide published once a year in Flight International are third-party, reputable and reliable sources that support terminated destinations.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The World Airlines Guide is a catalogue with short, one-paragraph entries for each airline in the world, not significant coverage. Catalogue entries/trivial coverage don't support notability per WP:ORGDEPTH, nor does being listed in a catalogue that attempts to list every single company in a particular field. Moreover to pass WP:CORP the coverage needs to not be simply industry press per WP:ORGIND/WP:AUD, and Flight International is clearly industry press. And even with that, you still have to get past WP:NOT and explain why we should have an article dedicated to exhaustively listing the services of a commercial organisation. FOARP (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can explain what kind of references fits better for airline-related articles than airline-industry material.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A high-quality and independent source, that is not industry press, and that reaches a regional/national/international general (not narrow-interest or local) audience, providing significant coverage of the subject (in this case listing the destinations of Libyan Airlines and discussing them in detail). Sources that tend to provide that kind of coverage are high-quality broadsheet newspapers like the New York Times, national broadcasters like the BBC etc., though of course these also include brief coverage that does not amount to SIGCOV so simply being mentioned on them is not enough.
And even if this is found, that still only addresses the WP:CORP part of the problems with this article. The WP:NOT part is far more fundamental. FOARP (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not indeed? Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and if airline destinations change week-to-week it makes no sense to try to to support what amounts to a news-feed of airline destination updates, but that's what would happen if anyone tried to keep these articles up-to-date. These articles, in my humble opinion, do not belong in an encyclopaedia. FOARP (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to support your view, but let me tell you that you will have strong opposition in deleting the entire set of airline's destinations articles. For the time being I still think this article should not be deleted.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Considering people would just go to an airline's website when they wish to find out what destinations can an airline serve, I'd say this list is pretty redundant. Unlike, for example, list of past mayoral elections in a city or list of important historical event in a date, this type of list doesn't really add much value compare to its source. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2023 (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 Shayan Chowdhury Arnob. ✗plicit 02:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Boleche Hobe

AfDs for this article:
Rod Boleche Hobe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found no significant coverage for the subject, and searches in Bengali did not return with anything other than trivial mentions. Out of the four links in the previous AfD, only this one has an archived version, and it doesn't seem to have mentioned the subject at all. Fails WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albawings destinations

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

Nominated for deletion per the 2018 RFC as modified by the subsequent AN discussion.

Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is a complete and exhaustive listing of all the services offered by a business.

Also fails WP:CORP, as the only source cited is the company's own website. A WP:BEFORE search uncovered nothing that could fix this, as, unsurprisingly, there is no significant coverage of all the destinations of a minor Albanian airline to be found (at least, not easily) in reliable, independent sources that meet the audience and independence requirements of WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MacPherson (Warehouse 13)

MacPherson (Warehouse 13) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding evidence of this passing WP:GNG, source search not turning anything up in particular. The article also fails to indicate why the episode is especially noteworthy. ASUKITE 15:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following recently-created episodes for the same reason:

Excellent. I’ll just stay in my lane and stop trying! Skukklenoggin (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it personally. We have fairly strong policies regarding notability for a reason, but we absolutely want your contributions! It's just a learning opportunity. God knows I've had a few of those myself. ASUKITE 17:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand! It is just difficult to do anything when there are no sources available to link to because the websites that published things at the time are long gone. I really appreciate all the effort you and so many others have gone to to suggest improvements or find sources, or even in so many cases; make a minor edit of removing an extra apostrophe rather than just clicking the “undo” button and erasing twenty minutes of piecework.
This page series only took what, about 16 hours? That’s ok. It’s just not notable enough. Skukklenoggin (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why it is recommended to work your way up to article creation. *sighs* Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kuban Airlines destinations

List of Kuban Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the 2018 RFC, exhaustive lists of airline destinations are not suitable content for Wikipedia. A subsequent AN discussion concluded that these articles should be AFD'd in an orderly manner with a link to the original RFC discussion and that it should be taken into account in any close.

This article fails WP:NOT as it is a clear failure of WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Specifically it is a complete listing of all the services provided by a company. It is no different, ultimately, to a complete listing of all the outlets of Roy Roger's as of 5th July 1983. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not the Yellow Pages or Skyscanner.

Even if the RFC were set to one side, and the WP:NOT issues dealt with somehow (and I do not believe they can be), this article would still be a failure of WP:CORP, which explicitly requires that articles solely about the services offered by a company are cited to significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources that go beyond mere specialist/industry press and are not simply local or narrow-interest coverage. This is resolutely not the case for this article, which is cited only to the company website Kuban.aero (now 404), a blog on Travel.ru (a website that sells travel tickets), and Agent.ru (another website that sells tickets). Given the NOT issues a WP:BEFORE search is not mandatory, but I did one anyway and unsurprisingly there was nothing that would fix this. The lack of a corresponding RU-language page about the destinations of Kuban Airlines is also indicative of the problem. Looking at the sourcing for the Kuban Airlines page there is also nothing that would fix this. FOARP (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2023 (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 Güler Duman. – Joe (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dost Garip

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

Not finding sources indicating a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM, was draftified once already. There may be non-english sources but I didn't find anything at trwiki either. Article relies on sales numbers which is backed by discogs, which is unreliable per WP:RSP. ASUKITE 14:54, 17 May 2023 (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. – Joe (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern Pennsylvania

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

Nonexistent region: WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, with no proper definition/delineation. No cited sources define NEPA, and sources available online disagree, and are typically tourism advertisements. The sources present only discuss a population spike (retrieved 2014) and three local organizations. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Central Pennsylvania for similar case/context. Proposed Deletion or redirect to Pocono Mountains.
Before proposing a redirect to Regions of Pennsylvania I request that you observe that that article is entirely synthesized. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft Agree with nom, OR/SYNTH. None of the sources support article subject so this is essentially an unsourced article and is not suitable to stay in mainspace. If this is a notable subject (Reywas92 refs show it may be, but none actually define the subject, [12] or define it significantly different from the article [13],[14], [15]), drafting will provide time to find references with a properly sourced definition of Northeastern Pennsylvania that meets NGEO or GNG.  // Timothy :: talk  09:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbatical (TV series)

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

Poorly sourced article about a dropped television pilot with no strong alternative claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. While this did get broadcast as a one-off special despite its failure to get picked up to series, that isn't an automatic free notability pass in and of itself -- it would still have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about it to establish its significance. But the only sources shown here are a single "pilot in production" press release from the producers and a Blogspot blog that isn't a reliable or notability-assisting source at all, and I can find absolutely nothing else on a WP:BEFORE search except glancing namechecks of its existence.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt a failed pilot from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2023 (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 Nicholas Simon. ✗plicit 02:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indochina Production

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

Self-citations, not notable organization and no reliable sources provided BoraVoro (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Christie

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

Doesn't seem to meet subject specific or general notability guidelines. zoglophie 13:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addin Tyldesley

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

Article fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The majority of the sources are mere passing mentions or statistics tables, and the bulk of the prose is simply statistics that have been written out as sentences. The Olympedia source is the most in-depth coverage that we have, but its own sourcing is unclear and in any case it's insufficient to establish notability on its own. –dlthewave ☎ 13:17, 17 May 2023 (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. signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Momen

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

Living person missing "reliable sources" & doesn't seem to pass "notability (people)" NameGame (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Ford Foundation. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fund for Adult Education

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

Sent to draft space multiple times and returned to article space without substantive changes. Seems to be borderline on notability. Let's have the community decide. UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the original author of this article. I have now added more references to demonstrate notability. I would propose that this is notable apart from the Ford Foundation article because it operated semi-independently of the foundation (e.g., was not exclusively a grantmaking project) and there is specific news coverage of the activities of the FAE. Ef726 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I approved through AfC and then sent it back to mainspace after another editor sent back to draft. I included some of the many references about the organization which can be found on Newspapers.com through a WP:BEFORE search. There is not too much recent coverage as it is now defunct. I don't see an issue with it being merged to the Ford Foundation but based on the significant coverage it would need to covered somehow. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Ford Foundation as per above. Out of all the cited sourced, only the article by Edelson and the article from Petersburg Times can be considered SIGCOV. other coverage that I found are either trivial mentions or covered as part of Ford Foundation's contribution to adult education. There does not seem to be enough coverage and content to justify a stand alone article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2023 (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 12:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Jagrut

AfDs for this article:
Ruby Jagrut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ARTIST. Previous AfDs mentioned sources in Deccan Herald and NIE; these seem to be magazine interviews and not necessarily independent of the subject. All other sources are about the festival/organisation itself with barely a passing mention. No evidence of artist inventing any notable work, only a potentially notable organisation. Article has remained in promotional tone for years, because the only sources on the person are inherently promotional. Fermiboson (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed the uncited information and random list of links. Fail WP:ARTIST. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ARTIST not met and many promotional additions by SPA with suspicious similar username. ParadaJulio (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2023 (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 Emi Hinouchi. – Joe (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voice (Emi Hinouchi album)

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

Fails GNG. Unsourced. BEFORE showed promo, database style results, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly (the album) and in-depth. No objection to a consensus redirect to the artist  // Timothy :: talk  11:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robomagic

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

Coverage of this company is largely routine corporate announcements, passing mentions or non-independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:25, 17 May 2023 (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 12:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swayambhar Public Library

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

This library does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP: ORG or WP:NONPROFIT BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Bangladesh. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - I'm inclined to believe that libraries are generally notable, particularly in countries where there are not many of them. There appears to be a few Bengali news reports (fwiw I don't have full access to relevant sources) but there may be questions about independence of those sources so I'm not offering them for consideration here. Also this from bn.wiki appears to be a deletion page, perhaps indicative of something. I think we really need people who can read the language to have a proper AfD discussion here. JMWt (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not a public meaning government-owned library but a private library open to the public. From the photo, it would seem to be a small, possibly one-room, library. Bn Wiki deleted it as A7. The library has no coverage and does not even show up on Google Maps. There is nothing to suggest notability of any kind.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a private library open to the public .Now there are thousands of libraries not clear how this one is notable fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2023 (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ekar (carsharing app)

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

Possible block violation and recreation. the page was drafted recently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ekar BoraVoro (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacks indepth coverage fails wP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I think that the The National and Gulf News coverage could begin to establish a case for notability, but they do have a veneer of promotionality to them. The Gulf Business coverage is one step worse in this capacity, as it uses a collective byline. signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the most part I agree with Rosguill's analysis, but the Gulf Business articles read clearly of being press releases to me, Gulf News slightly less so, and both of them would fall under the standard notices/routine coverage parts of CORPDEPTH, so I am comfortable eliminating them entirely. Rest of the ghits seem more of the same. Two marginal articles from the same newsorg then, does not NCORP make. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:32, 10 June 2023 (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 13:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onyika Junior Secondary School

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

This school does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSCHOOL BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2023 (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 13:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karlshrue College

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

I can't find anything when searching "Karlshrue College" or "කාල්ෂ්රූ විද්‍යාලය" that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Best I found was Janta Review which has no meaningful info. Article has been unsourced since 2005 and tagged for improvement since 2009 so an AfD is well overdue here since I can't find a way of bringing this up to even the minimum standard. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same although I think the school is derived from Karlshrue Place in Colombo, which may well be itself a corruption of Karlsruhe, Germany. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School closed in 2010 and I can only find mentions of a schools in the German town of Karlsruhe. Nothing for this school. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2023 (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. Although some of the "keep" !votes are light on policy, there is consensus thatthis should not be deleted. Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramswarup Ramsagar Multiple Campus

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

Contested redirect - not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes notability. Onel5969 TT me 10:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contest deletion nomination: @Shellwood:, Why does this campus fail notability? It is one of the oldest constituent campuses under Tribhuvan University. Being unbiased, I request the nominator to see other articles on campuses in Nepal. Even Model Multiple College, which lies in same city which feels promotion and has not even refrenced. It is the college attained by first President of Nepal, Former Peputy Prime minister of Nepal, numerous Ministers of Nepal and renouned peoples in Nepal. Category:Tribhuvan University has 50+ articles which are less notable than this one. I feel a detail discussion is required to make a conclusion on all articles of this type in Nepal. Else I feel I have given much reference to this article.Franked2004 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument at AfD. If you think those articles should be deleted, feel free to go through proper deletion processes with them, but that doesn't mean we should keep this one. See also User:Jéské Couriano/A brief history of AfC * Pppery * it has begun... 14:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered your implied challenge and started to clean up Category:Tribhuvan University - you're right, a lot of those cite no secondary sources at all, and I've either redirected or PRODDed them. But that's not an excuse to keep this article. Wikipedia (unfortunately) works by having a lot of unwated stuff lying around and editors semi-randomly bringing them to the spotlight to be cleaned out.
To be clear, this article at the time I redirected it cited no secondary sources at all, and I haven't evaluated the suitability of the sources you added (and thus am not formally advocating deletion or re-redirecting). But you need to focus on the merits of those sources and whether they provide in-depth, independent coverage, not on calls for consistency. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the sources mentioned on the articles are totally independent and based on national level reputed medias including Kantipur which is most popular news agency in Nepal.
I can accept this article would have been un-notable before my edit. But the campus has more than seven thousand student which is greater number than what many universities have. I see the college is where first president of Nepal, Ram Baran Yadav and former deputy prime minister Bimalendra Nidhi have studied as well. Being even older than than the oldest university of Nepal, Tribhuvan University I see the article to be totally notable specially after the addition and uplifting of artcle that I have made. Franked2004 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag for notability/viewpoints: the currently-cited articles from Annapurna [16], Ekagaj [17], Bahrakhari [18] and Kantipur TV [19] appear to have significant coverage of the subject, which is apparently also known by the acronym RARAB. It's not a clean case for GNG, but the nature of the reportage is suggestive of there being much more coverage out there as well. These references all report an apparently abysmal state of conditions at the campus itself which is reflected nowhere in the article. signed, Rosguill talk 02:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Oughtonhead Common. ✗plicit 02:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oughtonhead Nature Reserve

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable nature reserve. I can't find anything much that would meet the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is well sourced and notable as a Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust site. I successfully nominated HMWT as a featured list and it was Today's featured list on September 23, 2016. No concerns were raised about the articles on any of the sites in the FL review. FLs should preferably have articles about each item in the list, and it would be odd - and unhelpful for readers - if Outonhead was the only HMWT site which did not have an article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is the WP:GNG. If there are third party reliable sources that cover the topic, then let's see them. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source is HMWT. Wildlife Trust sites have always been accepted by FL reviewers as reliable third party sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the trust nor the local authority (which it seems own the land) are independent sources. Even if they were, we need more than that. JMWt (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well since HMWT are managing the site, the local authority is not, so it has an arm's length of independence: I'd think it a perfectly valid source. Other sources include the RSPB, which calls it "the “jewel in the crown” of our region’s nature reserves." North Herts Ramblers Group gives it brief coverage, not enough for notability. The RSPB's former International Director Alistair Gammell has written in detail how the reserve was an SSSI but has been damaged by water extraction. The extraction remains a current issue, as documented in the Hertfordshire Mercury (local paper). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not well sourced, it only has two references. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked OS maps and found Oughtonhead Common Nature Reserve OS Grid Ref: TL 16860 30275, Longitude: 0°18'3"W, Latitude: 51°57'31"N. Is this the same place? If so it meets WP:GEOLAND as a named place, and searches on the full name appear to show plenty more references, sufficient to demonstrate WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a populated place. Which WP:GEOLAND criteria do you think applies? JMWt (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Named natural features. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no assumption of notability there. It says "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist."
    This one isn't. Very slight information exists beyond the statistics and coordinates and that which does is sources from the manager (the trust) and the owner (the local authority), neither of which are independent. JMWt (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I did not say I thought that meant it should be an article. The problem with WP:GEOLAND is people too often assume that meeting the definition of "presumed notability" means that notability for an article is established. It is not, because as the guidelines state, sometimes the feature is better described in a parent article, as there may not be sufficient information for an article of the feature in its own right. That is why I said it meets GEOLAND but also said I thought that the sources, if it refers to the common, demonstrate meeting GNG for an article. Another problem with GEOLAND, and one that we are stuck with, is that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. It is both encyclopaedia and gazetteer, and although the guidelines say it is not indiscriminate, it is usually the case that named features on national mapping like OS maps will be deemed notable. However, what matters is the sources, and as you did not clarify that yes, this article does refer to Oughtonhead Common Nature Reserve, I have since established that fact for myself and done some more reading. There is certainly sufficient information out there to establish an article for Oughtonhead Common, and I have since found that such a stub article exists. Oughtonhead Common Nature Reserve is then established on the common in 1982, and I have found it does get mention in a few books, but in my opinion the nature reserve is not sufficiently significant to have an article separate from the common article. Everything about the nature reserve could be placed in a section on the Oughtonhead Common article, to the benefit of both. My considered view is therefore that a merge would most benefit the project. I will place that !vote on a new line. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Oughtonhead Common. The two are co-extensive, and the nature reserve is the key feature of the common. Oughtonhead Common is the common name (er... pardon the pun!), but this should be a section of that article, and the redirect could then point to the section. My further consideration of this is above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- This article is a stub & only has 2 references, those references do not show notability. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At AfD it is not the state of the article that matters, but whether sources exist that establish notability. Sources don't have to be in the article, they just have to exist. Chiswick Chap has cited four additional sources, so they should also be considered. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we have 6 sources then. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2023 (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 12:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project Starfighter

AfDs for this article:
Project Starfighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tried to find significant coverage in reliable sources; unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any. Looking at the past AfD, the sources found were largely trivial coverage or unreliable coverage, including forum posts. As the article stands, it is largely supported by self-published sources or unreliable sources, with the only exception being the Maximum PC link. If someone can save it, I'd be more than happy to see that. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2023 (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 07:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khursheed Mansoori

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

Fail in WP:BIO ND WP:POLITICIAN. NO FULLFILL GEN. CRITERA FOR POLITICIAN Worldiswide (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jelena Đurović

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

This individual lacks notability and more importantly some information seems fabricated. For example, the article claims this individual to be "Vice President of the Jewish Community of Montenegro" but it is not true (the current website contradicts its previous version); ditto for "Chairwoman of OJC SEE". Also, "As a journalist, she works as film and TV critic", however she doesn't work for any notable media outlets, apart from her own blog, which is practically unknown but nevertheless advertised here. Magg17 (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Sources are very outdated and this person is really non relevant. Боки ✉ 17:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's this, from the World Jewish Congress, [21], I assume is a RS and not related to the subject of this AfD. Plenty of sources in Serbian?, which I can't assess to notability or not using Gtranslate. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: The real purpose of this (old) article seems to promote her blog. 151.57.238.164 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2023 (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. – Joe (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Siegele

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

Fails WP:BIO. The links provided do not meet WP:SIGCOV. One of the cited sources from ABC Australia might have been SIGCOV but it's a dead link. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Advertiser (not the most reliable name, I know): [22][23] [24] and many more.
Weekend Australian: [25]
The Sydney Morning Herald: [26]
The Sunday Mail: [27] (more about his company securing a contract)
He also has dozens of passing mentions or minor quotes in news articles regarding his company RatBag. I think all these combined establish notability. Merko (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2023 (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 07:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Fernando (Prophet)

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

It appears to be largely promotional in nature and lacks independent sources to prove the claims made. The bulk of the information is sourced from Fernando's own website, which is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. BoraVoro (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2023 (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. – Joe (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monson High School

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

only sources are databases for the infobox. a search for sources only turns up some sources about some emergency there and some people who teach there. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- this article is well referenced with independent sources. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2023 (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 Devlin discography. – Joe (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

50 Grand

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

Fails GNG. Sources in the article and BEFORE are promos or primary. No objection to a redirect to Devlin discography; there is no properly sourced material for a merge beyond basic facts.  // Timothy :: talk  05:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. – Joe (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remote (band)

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

Unsourced article. While both of the members seem to be notable, I can't find any significant coverage of the band. Previously deprod, but the user who deprod it did not add any source as well. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what little can be salvaged into Roger Eno. The notability of Miromusic looks very questionable too. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth free trade

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

This article is about a vague topic with limited value, furthermore has been poorly cited for a over a decade. This has led to various misinformation occuring through out the article. In turn, the majority of properly sourced information is spoken about on their own dedicated pages without an explanation for their relevance to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevoLake (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Article is well referenced & we have learned about this in school. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having learned about it in school is not really a valid reason for this instance. But it is fair game for WP:NBOOK. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
◆Comment-
Added these books to the see also section & cited them in the article:
The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection[1]
Free Trade Reimagined: The World Division of Labor and the Method of Economics[2]
Free Trade[3]
Free Trade and Prosperity: How Openness Helps the Developing Countries Grow Richer and Combat Poverty[4] PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Roberts, Russell D. (2007). The choice: a fable of free trade and protectionism (3 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-143354-0.
  2. ^ Unger, Roberto Mangabeira (2007). Free trade reimagined: the world division of labor and the method of economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-14588-4.
  3. ^ Hanson, Ann Aubrey; Zott, Lynn Marie, eds. (2013). Free trade. Opposing viewpoints series. Farmington Hills, Mich: Greenhaven Press. ISBN 978-0-7377-6055-2.
  4. ^ Panagariya, Arvind (2019). Free trade and prosperity: how openness helps developing countries grow richer and combat poverty. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-091449-3.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Purdy

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

Author of one book that doesn't seem to have been very successful. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Schierbecker (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup All-Time Team

FIFA World Cup All-Time Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of this list being particularly notable. It doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, either. It's just a team posted by FIFA in 1994, does not merit an article for me. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2023 (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. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Diamond

AfDs for this article:
Graham Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a novelist is poorly sourced; I have carried out WP:BEFORE and have not been able to find any coverage to add. It has been to AfD before, in 2006 (keep) and 2010 (no consensus). It has been tagged as needing more citations since 2010. Tacyarg (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep mainly per the comment by DGG in the previous AFD in 2010. Someone with access to a good library should follow up with reviews of this published author and improve the article if possible, but would appear to satisfy the requirement of multiple independent reviews. Andre🚐 02:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My books have been constantly in print. In more recent years, Venture and Endeavour Press UK. Now Lume Books, UK and CANELO, UK, have new editions of MAYBE YOU WILL SURVIVE out. The Holocaust true seller has over 1,700 4 and 5 star reviews on Amazon, available at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and Israel. It was contracted by a publisher in the Czech Republic and is now in print in Czech.
BLACK MIDNIGHT, a terrorist thriller published by Kensington/Zebra in the US, and is now available from Lume, UK. A softcover is available from Lion in New York.
Jerelle Kraus, author of the Truth of the NY TIMES, hailed my work on LinkedIn. Editor/writer Susan Shwartz also hailed my work and invited me into an anthology.
I have more proven work than most authors today.
A brand new novel DINER OF LOST SOULS book 2 is coming out in a few weeks. With well over a million softcover books in print I think I deserve to remain listed.
thank you,
Graham Diamond, New York 69.126.139.196 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Galaxy Explorers

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

Fails WP:GNG. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:09, 17 May 2023 (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 02:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inri Manzo

AfDs for this article:
Inri Manzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about semi-pro footballer who played 51 minutes of football in the first stage of the Copa MX back in 2016, which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. An AfD in 2017 resulted in no consensus despite GNG failure under a presumption that because he was a young player, he would play enough to satisfy the deprecated NFOOTBALL in the future. Well, he's only played as a semi-pro since, and the coverage hasn't really improved (Los Pleyers and e-Consulta are the best sources I could find, but they are not in-depth coverage). Jogurney (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Germany–New Zealand relations. signed, Rosguill talk 01:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of New Zealand, Berlin

Embassy of New Zealand, Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Embassies are not inherently notable. There is no significant third party coverage to meet WP:ORG or GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would that additional information be better placed in Germany–New Zealand relations? LibStar (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Merge into Germany-New Zealand relations makes sense NealeWellington (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me!) 00:42, 2 June 2023 (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 01:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tan D. Nguyen

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

​The article states that Tan D. Nguyen is a congressional candidate. It also mentions his conviction for voter intimidation. Congressional candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. However, nothing is so distinct about his candidacy that he himself warrants an article. It is otherwise run of the mill coverage of candidacies that do not rise to the level of candidates like Christine O'Donnell or Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson). The other is his conviction. Notability as it relates to crime and criminals states that "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The information on his conviction can be merged into the 2006 election's article. Mpen320 (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2023 (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. While there were a fair amount of eloquent (LLMoquent?) comments in favor of keeping the article, none of them were the slightest bit based in actual policy. signed, Rosguill talk 02:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FLO Vitamins

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

Not seeing any truly independent coverage for this product. Sourced to interviews, advertorials and PR Newswire pieces. KH-1 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Products. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very PROMO. Sources I find are all PR, except for this interview/advertorial with the founder [28], which is not much. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've researched and consider it can be kept per the general notability as it is the world’s first-ever PMS gummy vitamin per Fortune. Additionally, both the innovative approach in developing this vitamin and its subsequent influence on the dietary supplement market contribute to its significance, thereby justifying its presence as an article on Wikipedia. --BoraVoro (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We need sources that discuss this, otherwise this is unsourced product talk. Oaktree b (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is a high public interest—the product was used by public figures like Haley Lu Richardson, Molly Sims, Charlotte Mckinney and was recognized by obstetrics and gynaecology medical experts . As the women's health stuff it looks significant enough.Rodgers V (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those don't contribute to notability. We need discussion is scientific journals if it has been so studied. Oaktree b (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hmmm... A good few are interviews, but those focus more on Bitton and the company rather than this product. There were also two press releases, and those are primary sources. I guess Beauty Independent appears to be reliable, as the strongest, but a high bar is required for medical claims. SWinxy (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article written from a neutral point of view, representing proportionately, and without bias. All of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The vitamins have significant interest to the public. In particular, this is presented in this and this articles. Of course, the article still needs to be improved and finalized. But at this stage, it looks good enough to be left for improvement. --Loewstisch (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have my doubts about the Beauty Independent. The article is categorised as a "Brand Report" which is essentially an advertorial-style piece. While the content is unique, the title/angle suggests that it's based on the company's press release. The Bloomberg piece only mentions the product in passing: "O Positiv offers a strawberry gummy with chasteberry, the herb dong quai, vitamin B6, and lemon balm ($27) for PMS-related cramps, acne, and mood swings." -KH-1 (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem PR-ish, almost like and advertorial. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:14, 25 May 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_May_17&oldid=1156875377"