Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:52, 9 August 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 01	August 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Jeeva

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biographies-related deletion discussions. NYC Guru (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced cinematographer. Only 3 films.

Source analysis:

Bad database
Bad database
Source about his dad and his uncle, not him
Unreliable DareshMohan (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other option is to redirect to dad Jeeva (artist).

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page has only 3 sources and they collectively don't help with notability criteria. I don't think redirecting to Jeeva (artist) helps either.CourtseyDriver (talk) 23:23, 3 August 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 San Jose State University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San José State Alma Mater

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

Article fails WP:MUSIC. A search on both general Google results and Google Books finds no significant secondary source material about this song. There is no inherent notability just because this is the school song for a notable university. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to Merge to San Jose State University. I agree with Arbor to SJ that this song by itself is not notable. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this does get kept then it needs to be moved to Hail! Spartans, Hail! since that's the actual name of the song. However, it certainly should not be kept with just the sources on page since those are clearly all primary and do not convey notability. No time to check for sources myself so I don't have an actual vote here, but if the nominator's search turning up nothing holds true for other editors then a merge/redirect like TheLonelyPather suggested would be the most appropriate action. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. The song is not notable on its own two legs and is not a notable college alma mater. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:44, 3 August 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 Nate Paul. ✗plicit 01:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Class Capital Group

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

The company by itself does not meet the criteria for WP:ORG or WP:ORGIND. Yes, there's a good number of sourcing. However, the coverage is basically an aggrandizing Forbes profile about the founder and trade publication reporting about routine real estate transactions. Longhornsg (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nate Paul as per ATD and suggestions below. ~~Delete~~ I agree, the references fail GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. As pointed out above, the vast majority either regurgitate company announcements or other PR or are not "Independent Content" relying on information provided by an executive/founder. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we have well-sourced article about Nate Paul, World Class's colorful founder and an alleged felon. He's very notable and is at the center of the impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Maybe we just don't need this article, too.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some coverage the paid editors left out: ^[1][2]

Unfortunately all the details are in the Austin Business Journal article which is behind a paywall. If we keep this article, we'll need sources to update the article for the bankruptcies.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still more: ^[3][4][5][6]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:35, 26 July 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, ArcAngel (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Nate Paul. Although I suspect WP:NCORP might be satisfied by profiles of Paul (the Forbes article isn't so aggrandizing if you read down to the section starting "when you are") the focus is on him. The article does a good job of laying out his history of oh-so-many real estate developments but that isn't getting the meaty news coverage, just the owner. Oblivy (talk) 03:50, 4 August 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 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Oldfield

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Only a primary source supplied. 2 gnews hits, one being the unreliable WP:DAILYMAIL. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Luckily the Daily Mail has been removed from this article, as it rightly should be from every article where it does not play a significant role. Even then, how is Oldfield a notable athlete by our standards? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 5 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odek

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

No indication of notability except as the birth place of a terrorist. Delete or redirect to Joseph Kony. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't this a settlement though? I generally argue to keep most villages, but I have to agree that this one doesn't seem notable. Nothing in Google Books,and all hits on scholar are for authors. Kony of course is himself notable but that doesn't transfer just because he was born there. Maybe if he had operated from there at some point in time. If the settlement rule does not apply here, this vote can be counted as delete. Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite literally the only content in the article, and, indeed, the only content I can find elsewhere, is in connection to Kony. No population figures, no rough history, nothing. Unhelpful to the reader: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Notability is not inhereted. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 10:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've done some poking around, and from what I can tell Odek is at 2°40′48″N 32°43′41″E / 2.680°N 32.728°E / 2.680; 32.728 (don't ask me why Google Maps calls it "Omor", the school and medical center are both "Odek"). I came across a few news articles that mention Odek or "Odek Subcounty" within the Omoro District ([7] [8] [9]). This source mentions a former LRA camp at Odek, and this map from OCHA has Odek as a village within Odek Subcounty. At the very least we could merge into a new article for Odek Subcounty. AviationFreak💬 16:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It is listed as a Sub County/Town Council at [10], so it appears to be a verifiable village/lowest level political subdivision. Sourcing is very thin though. Our coverage of Ugandan local government is lacking, many of the pages use old maps that don't include Oromo District which was split from Gulu in 2016. We definitely keep U.S. and European settlements of similar size and self-government, but they also almost always have more useable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm usually not a fan of WP:NEXIST, but in this case, I think it's fair to say that there are probably plenty of offline sources on this. It's true that sources on similarly-sized towns in Europe and the US are often more accessible, but we shouldn't delete based on that. If anything, it indicates that comparable sources exist for this village, just outside of our reach. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POPULATED and AviationFreak's research. —siro χ o 23:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as AviationFreak has fulfilled the Heymann Standard. I have placed a Sources Exist template in light of Actualcpscm's comment. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:47, 3 August 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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xorcist

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

Not notable. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and California. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granted, the article is in sad shape and is one that I've got on my list to improve, but the artist meets WP:BAND #5 having multiple releases on 21st Circuitry (a notable indie that was acquired by Metropolis, another notable indie); most of his work under this moniker (and hence coverage) was in the 1990s though he has some releases post-2017, therefore most coverage is not found easily on the web. There may also be opportunity for expansion as Peter Stone to cover his work in video games. -- t_kiehne (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's clear the article meets the criteria for notability (comparable to the Ministry of Sound article). The article definitely needs expansion with more sources, but that by itself is an insufficient reason for deletion, unless we want to delete most of the stub articles across Wikipedia. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the poor sourcing, I think we should get more opinions on this article. The nominator is requested to provide a more complete deletion rationale in future nominations...more than 2 words would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with above on WP:BAND#C5. Notability is presumed. We will not lack for a reasonable amount of WP:VERIFIABLE info, as we have a staff-written AllMusic bio [11] which can be relied on for music-related details. —siro χ o

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peoria Babylon

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because the film seems to have been screened at 4 festivals and is mentioned in the book quoted in the article; if not redirect to Ann Cusack, because many sources not on the page mention the film only because she's in it.-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 17:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep per above and book mention [12]. DareshMohan (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep. Two regional newspaper reviews and a book mention are probably enough for notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Weak Keeps are balanced out by the nomination statement. Any more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I would support a redirect as detailed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:22, 2 August 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyar Mori Re

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Production has really attracted a lot of attention (sources on the page or [13] or here (Title: "Saiyar Mori Re: a turning point in the Gujarati Film Industry's history" (!)), among other things. So weak keep; or redirect to List of Gujarati films of 2022.-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 17:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Found a review from journalist Medha Pandya Bhatt [14]. Other source: [15]. Has unique notability due to Young Gujarati Brothers become Youngest Production House to produce in Gujarati Cinema. DareshMohan (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the review and other coverage identified above, another review would help, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:22, 2 August 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. This is a procedural Keep based on the comments of the discussion participants who are advocating that this bundled nomination be split up into individual AFDs or, at least, smaller bundles of similar groups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Queensland Debating Society

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

A batch of university debate societies that all fail notability. Coverage tends to fall into one of the following categories:

Primary source to university newspaper
Passing mention as the venue for a talk
Coverage mentioning that a notable person attended said society. Notability is not WP:INHERITED
WP:ROUTINE coverage of a good result at a competition. Insufficient for GNG and per WP:NTEAM, GNG is the standard here.

There's a lot of high quality original research here, but alas I don't think any that can be saved without WP:TNT. As a result, I'm also nominating the following articles:

There's a lot more that don't make the cut, but I'll stick to 10 for now and see what reception is like. It sucks to delete so much hard work. There are some debating societies that are undoubtedly notable, but many that unfortunately are not.

BrigadierG (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Schools. BrigadierG (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you want to float a trial balloon, I'd suggest doing it with one article, not ten. Another way to go might be to redirect the various articles to their associated school BOLDly, and then bringing any you get pushback on to AfD. This discussion seems pretty unworkable, and the lack of participation seems to bear that opinion out. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I floated the one at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_Society,_University_College_Cork and the consensus was strong there. I've tried to follow the process for WP:MULTIAFD here, not sure what else I can do. In the spirit of AfD I'll leave open this vote, but if it looks like it will close with no consensus I will boldly play the executioner. BrigadierG (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the University Philosophical Society "fail[s] notability" is absolutely bizarre and utterly false. The University Philosophical Society is the oldest student society in the world, while also remaining the largest society (not just debating society) in all of Trinity, Ireland's top ranked university. It has a deep and complex history, which is well documented in the wikipedia article. The wikipedia article remains (for now) the main source of information about the Society on the internet. Deleting it would achieve absolutely nothing at all yet be a huge loss for anyone researching such a pivotal society in Irish history. I strongly recommend that such an informative article be kept online. 46.7.206.148 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Northern Ireland and Scotland. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the previous commenter, I think probably dealing with these individually is the way to go. I'm only interested in Otago University Debating Society which on the face of it seems to me to arguably meet WP:GNG through articles such as [16], although I agree that the article contains a lot based on primary sources and original research too; whether it does meet the thresholds could probably be debated (hah). Procedurally, I think it's better and clearer to consider each of these articles individually. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dealing these together makes no sense. Just close this and start again. --Bduke (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. This is way too many to deal with at once. The results are likely to be heterogeneous as in addition to the possibility of keeps, like University Philosophical Society, merges/redirects are also possible (and should have been considered before the articles were brought here.) --Jahaza (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per above. Each needs to be looked at on its own merits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 7 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Moravsky

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

Non-notable obstacle course racer. Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's lots of coverage on this guy through Google News - https://www.google.com/search?q=Joe+Moravsky&client=firefox-b-1-d&tbm=nws&ei=DBqwZOr2Ieyi5NoP7aSsiAI&start=20&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjqrOjLgYyAAxVsEVkFHW0SCyE4ChDw0wN6BAgEEBk&biw=1920&bih=947&dpr=1. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. KatoKungLee stands correct. Even if we discount "American Ninja Warrior Nation" to the fullest extent, the subject would still pass the GNG per sources identified. The article does need improvements, for example in keeping personal and career apart. Yet AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm reluctant to keep an article based on a link to a Google search results page. Have you found any reliable sources you can link to to demonstrate notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 2 August 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 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Calvert

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided and a career high ranking of 111. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 2 August 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. Editors identified at most one example of significant coverage in a reliable source, falling short of WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Roos

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was already nominated for deletion once, the consensus was to delete. A year later somebody recreated it. I don't see anything that has changed since the original deletion to justify maintaining this biography page. Citations in trade publications do not make a person notable. Rhombus (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rhombus (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing beyond confirmation of employment in sources used. All I find for sourcing is interviews and PR stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person will be notable when his track record in his company (IFS AB) or thereafter becomes more significant. At present there do not seem to be enough verified facts to warrant a separate biographical article, and those that exist could be included in his company's article. My Gussie (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found in depth article in the Financial Mail via the Wikipedia Library and ProQuest:

Hedley, Nick (20 December 2018). "Darren RoosCEO of software company IFS: Quickly through the ranks". Financial Mail. Retrieved 13 July 2023.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Financial Mail is a trade publication with a circulation (according to its Wikipedia page!) of ~19,000. A profile in a trade publication does not make a person notable. Is it a publication of record? Like a major national newspaper or financial newspaper? The trouble with magazines like this one is that they very often take money for publication. Also, it's one article. Is that all it takes to be notable enough to end up with a Wikipedia bio?

Let's remember that Wikipedia is often misused by people as an enhanced LinkedIn. There are providers who sell article generation and maintenance for self-promotion as a service. I think that's what is going on here, and we have a responsibility to fight that kind of misuse. Rhombus (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhombus, is there a prohibition against reliable trade publications? Is there a requirement that a reliable source be a "publication of record"? Does this publication publish articles for money? If so, why do annual subscriptions cost 1440 Rand ($80 USD). They claim to be a national news site - is this false?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per searched info by editor above. Seems to overall fall within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rhombus, is there a prohibition against reliable trade publications? Is there a requirement that a reliable source be a "publication of record"? Does this publication publish articles for money? If so, why do annual subscriptions cost 1440 Rand ($80 USD). They claim to be a national news site - is this false?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Business Live is the website of Business Day, a long established national daily newspaper, that's a WP:RS and the Financial Mail both founded in 1959. It is NOT a "trade publication", but a well-respected publication with a long pedigree. Park3r (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Park3r Do you have ties to Business Day or the Financial Mail? Rhombus (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not have any ties to either publication. I am familiar with both sources as a reader though. Park3r (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that a source be a "publication of record" - but it's a useful rule of thumb, and I mention it to encourage some thought about what it means for a source to be high-quality.

Paid-subscription publications take money for editorial content all the time, and if anything, this problem is getting worse, not better. This is especially true of trade publications. I don't yet see any evidence that this is a reliable source. The onus should be on the person citing to establish that a source is reliable. Rhombus (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thoroughly unremarkable businessman with run of the mill coverage. I would assume good faith on the part of the article creator however: usually the perps for paid-for vanity articles either have previous form or have done the few edits becessary before creating the lump of fluff.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TheLongTone, the article's creator, Cossde, has made 25,000+ edits over the last 15 years. The article they started looks well-referenced and neutral. (diff) They are not a paid editor.

@Rhombus, don't forget to notify the article's creator of this AfD.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the author. This should normally be part of listing the AfD. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used the automated tools to post to AfD. I assumed the author would automatically be notified. If that did not occur, I apologise. Rhombus (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable businessman, I don't see anything which clearly passes GNG here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: In what way is Roos "Sweden-related"? I don't find anything in the article linking him to Sweden. /FredrikT (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FredrikT: Roos is the CEO of IFS AB, a very large software company in Linköping

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if the Financial Mail article is reliable, one article is not enough. Per WP:NBLP, multiple sources are needed. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:19, 2 August 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 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Sharma (police officer)

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

Non notable police officer, sources are blogs, not meeting GNG. Okoslavia (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Having reviewed the sources when cleaning it up, it doesn't seem like there's much about him. Most of it seems to be passing mentions, still. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Police, India, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The editor who created this has been blocked, and their account globally locked for Undisclosed paid editing in violation of the WMF Terms of Use. — Maile (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to prove WP:NBIO & WP:GNG.Kind regards –––ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 09:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 18:32, 7 August 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. The provided sources, which ostensibly show that the subject meets GNG, have not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hyun-sun

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

Her only achievement is that she competed in the 2012 Summer Olympics. I did a search online and she was ranked 12th in those games. Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Charsaddian (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - No significant coverage in reliable sources. There's a chance that non-English language sources exist which I have not been able to find, but with a single 12th placed finish at the Olympics, this doesn't seem likely. I'll reconsider my !vote if someone can unearth something; as it stands, this fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. WJ94 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per the sources provided by Socccc this now meets GNG. WJ94 (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and South Korea. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bronze medalists at the 2010 Asian Games; Korea's first medal at the event since 2002 (1, 2). 2012 Biographical profile in The Hankyoreh. Pre-Olympics interview with Seoul Broadcasting System. Reaching the final round of the 2012 Olympics, even to finish 12th, was Korea's best performance in 12 years and the second finals appearance in the nation's history, since Jang Yoon-kyeong and Yoo Na-mi (1, 2). Return from Olympics covered (1). Retirement after the games also covered (1). Additional WP:ROUTINE coverage of their Olympics: 1. -Socccc (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Same sources apply to Park Hyun-ha, also under AfD. The sisters competed in both the Asian Games and Olympics as a duet. -Socccc (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Socccc's analysis confirms WP:SPORTBASIC. —siro χ o 23:08, 2 August 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. I see a rough consensus that the sources provided do not contain SIGCOV. I'm fine with restoring this article to Draft space if anyone would like to work on this article and a Redirect can be created from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Lakin

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

This former athlete biography article has one dead-link reference, one external link to the player's statistics. After further searching, I am unable to find additional sources to establish notability. It is missing Encyclopedia biography information such as Early life, Career information since 2013, Personal life, Achievements and honours (if any). Created on 27 July 2011. JoeNMLC (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, this confirms 54 appearances in England's professional football league. Decent amount of coverage online, such as this and this, COMMONSENSE says there will be more offline given this guy was active 30 years ago...a bad nomination where no BEFORE has been performed. Giant Snowman 20:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the many points made by GiantSnowman above. I also found [17] and [18], Article needs Improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Gazette article is a match report and clearly routine coverage. ~~The Times article seems to be a passing mention but I don't have access to the full article.~~ The Times article is a passing mention. The articles I found at Newspapers.com and ProQuest are all passing mentions like match reports unless I'm mistaken. If there's significant offline coverage surely some would show up there? Robby.is.on (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG (I can only find routine coverage like match reports and a brief note about his argument with manager John Sitton). He played a total of three seasons in the third and fourth tier of English football, among which only the 1992–93 season was a successful one for Leyton Orient. I don't see any indication that he attracted much attention during his playing career, and certainly nothing after it ended. Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:COMMONSENSE tells me that there isn't much likelihood that this career lower league player gained any notability at all. Alvaldi (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been a stub article since 2012, if someone wanted to fix it up they could. But why say keep when all you have is an infobox and one single sentence. Unless it was expanded to a decent agree and I agree it could be a keep article if done up. However there is nothing there. At the moment I side with the delete voters unless someone decides to create something here. Govvy (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is not a unanimous consensus to Delete. If "article needs improvement", now is the time to do that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. I added several references, including a replacement for the broken one. He's probably notable both as a player and as a coach/manager. One of the references is from the Daily Mail, which normally isn't a reliable source, but I reached it from Ebscohost. I suspect that the Daily Mails sports coverage is generally reliable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAILYMAIL makes no exceptions for sport. I have removed the article. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, all of the references Eastmain added to article except for the article by the The Sunday Times are match reports and transfer announcements (coaching appointments) and therefore routine coverage. The articles I found at Newspapers.com and ProQuest are also passing mentions like match reports. I had hoped the Sunday Times article would have more but it turns out it is about "fly-on-the-wall documentaries" with the only mention of Lakin being "First, the co-manager John Sitton sacked his friend, the long-serving defender Terry Howard. Then, he offered to fight players Barry Lakin and Mark Warren". The bottom line is: There is no WP:SIGCOV for this lower-league player and coach. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Robby.is.on that the newly added sources do not come close to significant coverage. These are routine transactional coverage or match reports that often mention Lakin only once. I appreciate the effort, but I don't see how it gets the article in compliance with the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe there is enough there and more out there.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid stub, not every source in the article meets WP:GNG but enough do, and sources will be hard to search for anyways due to being quasi-pre-internet. SportingFlyer T·C 19:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: not every source in the article meets WP:GNG but enough do Which ones? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, most of them are non-league. I'm still surprised he's been covered comprehensively and routinely for non-league stuff but we can't find a single source on him during his Leyton Orient days. Common sense would say that this would be easily sourced if he had played twenty years later. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the coverage could possibly be described as "comprehensive". All references in the article are extremely short, barely going beyond "Lakin has agreed to take over as manager at <club>". Robby.is.on (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not comprehensive in the sense any one individual article is particularly comprehensive, but rather that in terms of non-league he would frequently be written about routinely. It's just frustrating - I don't have the ability to search for 1990s era sources or to even check which teams he scored against in the league, whereas now with the loss of the SNGs we have minor league baseball players who easily pass GNG even though they've accomplished nothing sporting (this is just a rant you can ignore.) It's clearly been an untended garden for a long time looking at the history, but I'm surprised a player in the old Division Two would never have been covered significantly, and the fact it's been in such poor shape for a long time reflects either that there's nothing out there or that pre-internet sources can be difficult to find. At worst, we should redirect to a list of Leyton Orient players, since we can WP:V the fact he played for them. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how complete Newspapers.com and ProQuest are but as mentioned above they threw up quite a few match reports but zero SIGCOV. (You can get access to both Newspapers.com and ProQuest through Wikipedia Library.) We're lucky to have these resources for English players, many other countries don't have archives like that at all which results in articles of players being deleted with record number of appearances or goals for their national teams. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone checked the British Newspaper Archive? That would probably be the best place to find potential SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. There's 40 results for ""barry lakin" orient" and it's all match reports and brief mentions of transfers (example: "Midfielder Barry Lakin, who scored Saturday's match winner against Bromsgrove in the third round, has had his loan spell from Leyton Orient extended for another two months"). There's 14 results for ""barry lakin" chelmsford" – same. There's one for ""barry lakin" helsinki" which does not mention a move to Finland for Lakin suggesting he never played for HJK contrary to what our article claims. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know why people are adverse to match reports, they do help a lot. That's part of the sport. That's why I haven't really done a proper vote, I see this one down the middle a probable no-consensus. Govvy (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot write an article based on ten "Lakin scored the second goal in the 72th minute"s. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, there are thousands of articles of top level footballers that simply are sourced with signing, match reports and stat mirrors. :/ Govvy (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different problem. Those footballers don't lack SIGCOV like Lakin does. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed with Jogurney and Robby about the lack of non-routine, SIGCOV, IRS sources. GNG is not met, and there is zero presumption of offline sources existing accorded to footballers now that NFOOTY is deprecated. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified and the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb, which sources are SIGCOV of this person? JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there are very passionate debaters also at this AfD! This was my conclusion when I read through the sources. Now I would need to get back that. I will do so soon. gidonb (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't think a "no consensus" close is necessary here yet, I'd hope that the discussion would develop a little further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think match reports and coverage of changing teams is sufficient to meet WP:GNG or every pro player would merit an article. I also don't think managing a team at the 9th level of British football is grounds for WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:07, 16 August 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. The actual analysis of the references indicates that there are not sufficient reliable and independent sources to sustain an article on this subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foued Kahlaoui

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

Despite some coverage at local newspaper JSL here and here, very little coverage, practically no professional appearances, and subject fails general notability guideline. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tunisia, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [19], [20] (""The eccentric left" has come to make a name for itself in the North. Because in the South, this 23-year-old young man, born in Corsica, trained in Bastia, is referenced. If he could not win in Ligue 2 with Bastia (a few games, 1 goal), he has bounced back in the last two seasons with Gazélec d'Ajaccio. Foued Kahlaoui thus scored 9 goals in 2007-2008 and above all 14, this season, in the CFA. This boy, whose surname also hints at Moroccan origins, is leaving Corsica for the first time"), [21], [22], [23], [24] ("He took charge of the E3 team, and since then has made them progress with great regularity. His team is playing this season in Juniors D3, with a very promising first round, finishing 3rd and having the best attack with 77 goals scored."), [25], among many more French sources. Clealyr significant figure in French and Swiss lower league football who has Ligue 2, one of best second tiers in the world, experience. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. Once again interviews (tunisie-foot), articles from club websites (he played for and managed Signal) and routine coverage such as being fired are being passed off as sigcov. Clearly some scrub that somehow played in Ligue 2 before finding his natural level in the regional amateur divisions of France and Switzerland. Dougal18 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't merely "interviews" and "routine coverage such as being fired", I literally cited secondary coverage above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Dougal18 as there is no in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources (only one lejsl.fr article comes close). My favorite bit from the coverage linked above is this: Personne ne connaissait Foued Kahlaoui, pas même la plupart de ses futurs équipiers. Not exactly an endorsement of his notability ;) Jogurney (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed with above that the first lejsl.fr article (what even is the second piece??) is the only source that approaches SIGCOV, and that is not enough to meet GNG, especially when so many of the sentences in the piece are redundant or unencyclopedic fluff. Maville is a transfer report. Tunisie-foot is a pure Q&A interview (why link it at all?). Proxifoot has a passing mention in routine transaction news. Signal is his club website. TDG has a single quote from him. These are not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with above sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no offense but I feel like I've seen this exact AFD discussion hundreds of times at this point, always divided around athletes and what coverage counts towards GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with the inadequacy of sources cited above. Looking through the coverage, it is nothing more than a series of interviews and routine announcements filled with puffery that do not equal a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found a couple more interviews and transfer coverage of him from national magazines, which is the extent I can do with basic internet searches. While my new sources don't meet GNG (at least this brief bit of news could be used to flesh out the article with prose) I think he's both notable enough as a footballer - dozens of professional games - and has generated enough requisite secondary coverage, including at least one WP:GNG-qualifying source, that someone could write a decent, notable stub about him. In terms of overall notability, though, he's right on the line. SportingFlyer T·C 20:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the GNG-qualifying source? I can't find one nor has anyone identified one. Jogurney (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one Paul Vaurie linked is fine by my assessment. The Maville article is transfer announcement but also covers him decently enough. I think we can keep on both of those alone, and then there are additional JSL mentions which we could write a start-class article on. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Paul Vaurie that the JSL source is not adequate to establish SIGCOV, but I thank you for putting forward a policy-based argument in favor of keep. Jogurney (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Tunisia, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the eight sources currently listed at the article, three might constitute significant coverage: The first Le JSL article, the Dunkerque source, and maybe the Signal FC source. The interview from Signal FC includes an extremely concise biography and is not independent, as it seems he was coaching there at the time, so it doesn't count towards the GNG. The remaining sources, in my view, do not constitute significant coverage, as they only briefly mention Kahlaoui. Same goes for the source brought in by SportingFlyer. Since it doesn't seem there is enough information to write a thorough article that goes beyond simply where he played (WP:NOTDATABASE), I think deletion is appropriate.

WP:SPORTBASIC says that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." This contradicts my above reasoning, but the thorough searching done in the course of this discussion has convinced me that there are in fact not "sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". Thus, I still think deletion is most appropriate. Toadspike (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree - there's easily enough here to write a start-class article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 18 August 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hyun-ha

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

Her only achievement is that she competed in the 2012 Summer Olympics. I did a search online and she was ranked 12th in those games. Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Charsaddian (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - No significant coverage in reliable sources. There's a chance that non-English language sources exist which I have not been able to find, but with a single 12th placed finish at the Olympics, this doesn't seem likely. I'll reconsider my !vote if someone can unearth something; as it stands, this fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. WJ94 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per the sources provided by Socccc at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Hyun-sun this now meets GNG. WJ94 (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and South Korea. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See sources cited at Park Hyun-sun, which also apply to Hyun-ha since they competed in duet. -Socccc (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please link to sources and describe how they meet the gang for this individual
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Socccc's analysis confirms WP:SPORTBASIC. —siro χ o 23:08, 2 August 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 and no indication any further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Vasilyevich Popov

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

Non-notable university teacher. In politics, an assistant to a regional deputy and does not pass WP:NPOLITICIAN. On the web, does not pass WP:NYOUTUBE with such a small audience. It's true he's the author of a bunch of works, but that doesn't provide notability itself. Suitskvarts (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Meets WP:BASIC:
1. sigcov of studies in the US [26]
2. sigcov of a speech given by subject: [27],
3. part interview, part independent sigcov [28]
4. some sigcov verifying various information in the notes for this book published by Harvard University Press [29]

Should be enough, but almost certainly more in non-English-language sources as well. —siro χ o 20:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo:Are you sure that's our guy? I just don't see anywhere that he is connected with the "Siberian branch of the Soviet Union's Academy of Sciences". I mean, he's from St. Petersburg. Also, I think if he had traveled to the US in the 80's as part of Soviet delegation, it would have been mentioned on the Russian page. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my search I found at least 3 other contemporary people with reasonable coverage with the same first and last name (and English-language sources often do not include the patronymic), so it's possible a couple of these sources describe yet another, but there's a few similarities to the subject of the article. The gaps in degrees from this article lines up with being "distracted" by these related political pursuits at various times. The fact that he studied philosophy and economics seems to line up with the sources I listed. But I am not positive —siro χ o 19:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Russian article, ru:Попов, Михаил Васильевич (учёный) is much longer and has more citations. On the other hand, I'm not sure they establish notability.

Here's a copy of his CV at St. Petersburg University.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 10 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volothamp Geddarm

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

Lack of significant coverage in third-party sources. What little we have is a passing mention and two references from a non-notable magazine that ran for 1.5 years in the mid-90s, and isn't even listed on the page of its publisher. Dates are screwed up because of some old edit wars over tags, but the article has had maintenance tags since 2008. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Games. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What little we have gives us a decent reception section as a basis for a non-stubby article, thus fullfilling WP:WHYN. The Paste article dedicates 2+ paragraphs to Volo, so that's not a passing mention in my view. I don't see why Arcane should not be considered reliable for its area of expertise, i.e. fantasy. In addition to the present sources, this Giochi per il mio computer article, p. 102, has a paragraph dedicated explicitly to Volo. Sources with shorter commentary are Dungeons & Dragons is changing how it makes books, Volo's Guide to Monsters giveaway, Composing Media Composing Embodiment. Daranios (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arcane was not a long-lived magazine, but as a full-colour glossy that published each month on time and used a stable of good writers and artists, it was respected in the field of fantasy role-playing while it lasted. Its reader poll to determine the best 50 RPGs of all time was a first for the industry, and is still used extensively in other wiki articles. Neither of the reviews in Arcane nor the article in Paste were "passing mentions", and both delved into the reasons for the popularity of Volothamp. I would like to see some of the sources indicated by Daranios incorporated into the article, but even without them, the article is notable. Guinness323 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel the issue here is perhaps that the character themselves is being used where a series article would make more sense. The article itself states "It is through Volo's perspective that Ed Greenwood authored his detailed Forgotten Realms lore-books of the Volo's Guide series". It's possible this could be moved to Volo's Guide and be about the series, mentioning the actual character within the context of that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although I see what you are saying, at what point does a fictional character become notable enough to have their own article? Guinness323 (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states that multiple sources of significance are needed. I am unconvinced that Volo is notable based on the sources provided, but I haven't !voted to merge or something because I feel like the series itself is actually notable. Paste Magazine's definitely the biggest, but it entirely talks about him in the context of how the books are from his perspective. Meanwhile, the Polygon article that isn't the giveaway is meatily about Volo's Guide but only tangentially about Volo himself. Therefore I think the best option here is to move it to the Volo's Guide series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care too much either way. I think the commentary of secondary sources on Volo as a literary device would fit equally well into our article here or a Volo's Guides article. The commentary on Volo as a character (like the short sentences in the Polygon articles and the whole content of the Giochi per il mio computer article) fit better into our article dedicated to the character, but could be fitted into a series article as well. It remains that I believe there's enough material for the character to be notable (and too much to conveniently fit into Forgotten Realms#Characters), and the question of how to present that material best is a secondary question, which ideally can be solved outside a deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to have a lot more real-world significance than most other D&D characters. I'm seeeing some usable coverage in the popular press (e.g., in relation to the recent film) and academic work (e.g., in relation to him as an 'author' of real-world books). Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above comments on available sourcing. BOZ (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I will put my vote in as acknowledging that something about Volo is probably notable - I think it's the series, but that's more of a matter for a move discussion than an AfD, and some manner of page about him should remain on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 5 August 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 00:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Taylor (musician)

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

Does not pass WP:NMG, an the entirety of Career and Biography sections are written like a resume/promo piece. Qcne (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of Career and Biography also appear to be directly lifted from the singers' website, and a quick attempt to find sources only found a very short promotional article on NewarkAdvertiser about an upcoming concert. Delete. MikuFan39 (talk) 04:58, 5 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Pellett

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

WP:BLP of a radio personality and public transit announcer voice, not properly sourced as having any strong notability claim. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, and have to be reliably sourced as the subject of coverage and analysis about their work to independently validate its significance -- but this essentially just states that he's had jobs, and is referenced solely to his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, which is not a notability-building source as it doesn't represent independent attention being paid to his work by people without a vested interest in it. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of coverage in sources other than his own paycheque provider. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Just no. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted an actual, you know, rationale, 'Stand clear of the doors please' is really, really not the stuff of WP:GNG. As a Bloomberg anchor, there is no presumed notability and none in RS presented (or evident with a BEFORE) regarding the subject. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Epicgenius, siro and Oaktree b are wise. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that (that it's not the stuff of GNG)? I remember a big fuss being made in the media a few years ago when the person who voiced the "mind the gap" message on the London Underground retired or died or something. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to New Technology Train. I conducted a BEFORE search and only found a few sources about him. They all seem to be related to his announcements for New York City Transit, which are already covered in the NTT article. Besides that, Pellett unfortunately has no standalone notability. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems ok to me Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to New Technology Train#Recorded announcements seems best for the encyclopedia. —siro χ o 19:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many reliable sources starting with this one. NYC Guru (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source actually talks primarily about a different announcer, Bernie Wagenblast. As far as I can see, the source only mentions Pellett once, so it isn't significant coverage of him. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not seeing any policy-based rationale for deletion here, and nom doesn't seem to have done even a perfunctory WP:BEFORE. We have at least the following: 106 words (excluding quote) in The New Yorker, approximately 300 words (excluding quotes from subject) in The New York Post ("no consensus" on RSP), over 1000 words with significant biographical content in Straus News, 107 words on Vox (not independent of New Yorker piece). I would also note substantial portions of this 4-minute news clip (I think this might have been what NYC Guru meant to link to above?) from NBC New York, which is probably not GNG material but certainly helps to show that the article subject is WP:WELLKNOWN for BLP purposes. I would assume there are more as that's just when I got tired of searching. This seems to meet the GNG threshold of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, where "significant coverage" requires that no original research is needed to extract the content. And while these sources mostly aren't optimal for article-building, there are plenty of non-independent sources to fill in non-controversial biographical information. -- Visviva (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the NY Post, its RSP entry states that there is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics..., but it excepts sports reporting. My reading is that in this case, as it's neither politics or sports reporting, it is still generally unreliable. Hence, unless I am missing something, I'm not sure where you got that there's "no consensus" on RSP. (However, I have no strong opinion on the NY Press source and am not making a !vote now.) Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still caught between Redirect and Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the sourcing is there to support this WP:BLP - the New Yorker coverage isn't really significant and the best feature story is a neighbourhood newspaper. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated my above !vote from just redirect to keep or redirect. I'm fine with either option. —siro χ o 20:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the reliable print sources that have been added in the past week (which are enough right there), there are also a number of media occurrences, including video clips from Conan O’Brien and The New Yorker.LingLass (talk) 23:20, 29 July 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The justification to delete speaks about the article being sourced only to something written by his employer. But searches indicate there is news reporting about his voice work, which is described as one of the most famous voices in New York. Independent reporting about his work is what the nominator said was needed. I think arguably, he meets WP:CREATIVE criterion 4c, but less arguably the justification to delete is incorrect, a searches as per WP:BEFORE identify more sources than are discussed in the nomination.

CT55555(talk) 02:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the subject meets WP:Notability. Let's analyze these three sources and see if they meet the GNG. Here is a source assessment table:

Source assessment table prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
New Yorker	Independent media.	New Yorker meets journalistic standards	Enough to be significant.	✔ Yes
ABC	Independent media.	ABC meets journalistic standards	Enough to be significant.	✔ Yes
CBS	Independent media.	CBS meets journalistic standards	Enough to be significant.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sure, we said "last relist" once already, but that was before new sources were unexpectedly presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think the CBS source has significant coverage as a passing mention, but I agree that the other two sources count toward GNG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Significant for sure. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 00:06, 13 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays (Meghan Trainor featuring Earth, Wind & Fire song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. While the song seems to have made some component charts (not official national charts), there isn't any coverage from reliable, secondary sources. Today, while reliable, is an NBC show and doesn't count as a secondary source for coverage of a performance on another NBC show. N Ø 13:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, never charted and no coverage outside of the one performance. I was looking into NBC, they don't own the record label she sings for, Sony does. It's not cross promotion having her on the show, so less of a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the article survives this process, its title should be swapped with Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), which is currently a redirect to the parent album. All that disambiguation is unnecessary and awkward, and there would no confusion with other things at Holiday (disambiguation). See the article's infobox too. (This is not a comment on the song's notability.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Very Trainor Christmas. Little to no coverage about the song outside of album reviews. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG, so NSONG is not necessary. Note that I saw this page creation in the new pages feed and reviewed it. When the nominating user changed the page to a redirect, I figured I'd put the investigation I did during the new page review to use to add sources and restore the page. I found:
- There's approximately 100 words of SIGCOV dedicated to the song, published 2 years after the song, in a biography of the band Earth Wind & Fire, published by University Press of Mississippi, titled Do You Remember? Celebrating Fifty Years of Earth, Wind & Fire

There are probably a 100 of the band's songs covered in the biography, it does not impart individual notability to all of them as this does not constitute standalone coverage. The one line about how "the song embodies EWF's classic sound, with pulsating horns and a funky bassline" can be extremely comfortably accomodated on the album article.--N Ø 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an independent, reliable source covers a 100 of a band's songs does not prevent it from imparting notability from a particular song if the coverage of that song is significant enough. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- The Hollywood Life article is about 150 words of SIGCOV of various aspects of a performance (with further coverage of the album, not counted in the word count)

The Hollywood Life is a pathetic and unreliable tabloid imo that should never be used as a source. Shocklingly, one user at RSN considered it reliable but even that discussion seems to have concluded it should not be used to gauge notability.--N Ø 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- The Today.com article is a few hundred words of SIGCOV addressing visual aspects of different performances of the song, including a music video, and does seem to be independent of the subject of the article (the song).

I did encounter other short coverage beyond trivial that I didn't reference in the article. —siro χ o 18:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have already covered why the Today source does not count as a secondary source for the purposes of notability, for their coverage of a performance on another NBC show.--N Ø 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Today does not count as a secondary source for this song. The song is not owned by NBC and so Today is a secondary source with respect to coverage of the song. Rlendog (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Due to article corresponding to Wikipedia:Notability (music) with said song's ranking on the US Holiday Digital Song Sales chart along with Canadian Adult Contemporary Songs chart. Hence song is well in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (music) in being ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. What's more the song has been independently released as a single by Meghan Trainor featuring Earth, Wind & Fire, who are both two very notable musical artists.Scriber88 Talk 19:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well Holidays was of course released as a single, a fact that's firstly been verified and corroborated via Meghan Trainor - Holidays, the song's music video. What's this has been further substantiated via People https://people.com/music/meghan-trainor-releases-holiday-music-video-earth-wind-fire/, Entertainment Tonight, https://etcanada.com/news/716993/meghan-trainor-gets-festive-for-holidays-music-video/ and Page six https://pagesix.com/2020/12/03/earth-wind-fire-singer-says-band-doesnt-have-groupies-anymore/. Song is also notable having over 4.4 million views on YouTube whilst being critically acclaimed by GQ https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/christmas-songs-2020-ranked, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution https://www.ajc.com/life/music-blog/music-notes-this-year-we-need-a-little-christmas-music-more-than-ever/C3ZPP5XPMVEI7DQREJKRRZGRBQ/, The Spokesman-Review https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/nov/26/its-dolly-parton-carrie-underwood-meghan-trainor-l/ and AllMusic https://www.allmusic.com/album/a-very-trainor-christmas-mw0003422402.

Holidays is undoubtedly in accord with Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and what not. Certainly the song and article should be continually maintained in soing to offer an illustration of such notability. Scriber88 (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the charts you have mentioned are "national or significant music or sales charts". They are component charts which could do with a mention on the album article. Also see WP:NOTINHERITED for arguments to avoid during a deletion discussion.--N Ø 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the keep votes above is the creator of the article and the other "restored" it before this AfD. The pile-on keep votes with flawed arguments should be weighted accordingly.--N Ø 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan, I think it's predictable that an article creator would arguing for keeping an article they created in a deletion discussion. But they can participate in AFDs just like any editor. I don't see that their work on an article discounts the argument they are making in a discussion. I disagree when in some other AFDs an article creator's comments are tagged as if that means they are less important than other people's opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:17, 2 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maarten van der Duin

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

Tagged since May with notability, primary sources and lack of citations, this problematic biographical article's subject fails WP:GNG, confirmed by a WP:BEFORE. No evident notability as screenwriter, stage director or creative consultant, the three roles ascribed to him in the article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Netherlands. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"... he has been nominated for several awards that are notable awards based on the awards also having Wikipedia pages.Naomijeans (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Were these really awards he received or awards media units he contributed to received? gidonb (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until and unless better sourcing can be found. None of his awards appear to be "well-known and significant" which is a higher level than notability. The current sourcing is insufficient to support any article much less a WP:BLP. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found some passing mentions in books and surprisingly little in the press. He contributed to media units that were nominated and/or awarded prizes. That is nice yet unless the director, just maybe the producer, does not count toward notability. It mostly counts toward the unit's notability. If the award is more specific to the domain of that person (e.g. for the screenplay or special effects) we should again consider it. Also the GNG would still need to be met. gidonb (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet the following criterion (3) for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To your opinion, does he also pass the WP:GNG? gidonb (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but he seems to be notable as screenwriter. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After reviewing the subject's contributions to notable works, focusing on Het verhaal van Nederland, 14 - Diaries of the Great War and Small Hands in a Big War with some quick glances at others, I concur with Mushy Yank's analysis of WP:CREATIVE.C3. The subjects contributions are major and the works are significant. —siro χ o 23:35, 2 August 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. Three relistings and no consensus here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nimr Baqir al-Nimr Street

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

Fails GNG – an unremarkable topic: a street in Iran known only for one event – its 2016 rename. Since it has already been PRODded (against all policies, as it was a stub created mere two hours earlier and still being worked on), it now must go through the full deletion discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article includes a reference from a leading British newspaper, so this is not just a local story. And here is a reference showing that the renaming has been undone: https://www.newarab.com/news/iran-quietly-changes-name-nimr-street-mashhad Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A single old mention in a foreign newspaper is precisely a hallmark of ONEEVENT. Besides, the undoing was of a different street (in Mashhad, not in Tehran).

The nomination is in accordance with WP:NOTTEMPORARY which is a very good policy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nimr al-Nimr. The street itself is not notable, and its only WP:SIGCOV is from its renaming for al-Nimr. Longhornsg (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there more support for Deletion, Keeping or Merging the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted per below Keep. Meets WP:GEOROAD / WP:GNG. The nomination seems to be around concerns about WP:SUSTAINED. However, there are sources from 6+ years apart about this street, so it meets that criteria. Note that WP:ONEEVENT only applies to biographies, and would not apply given there are two distinct renaming events here. A merge might be in order but I'm not familiar enough with the target to be sure if 2023 coverage of the second name change would it. Given that we don't need a merge as an ATD, it should be treated as an editorial decision. —siro χ o 01:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo The 2023 article that Eastmain added a week ago is unrelated to the article subject (the news piece is about a similarly named street in another Iranian city). Even though I pointed this out to them immediately, they did not react. I have now removed the 2023 link as unrelated. You are welcome to revisit your !vote since SUSTAINED is certainly not met. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:02, 17 August 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, retitle, and reframe‎ as an article about the place. The argument that there is an inhabited place with a related name that would meet GEOLAND has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonbarsa Raj

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

This article has only two sources and that too donot cover it in depth. They fail WP: THREE and definitely don't fulfill WP:GNG. ~ Admantine123 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Admantine123 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For a dynasty that's claimed to be in existence for almost 300 years (assuming the dates in the article are reliably sourced) find it surprising there isn't more coverage. Only just come across this AfD and request a relist please to allow time to look into this. Rupples (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to make things confusing, there's a town by this name, too.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. Good point. I'm thinking along the lines of whether this article could be kept as part of the history of the village/town, if it can be reliably established the two are linked. Rupples (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/recommendation. This article was significantly refocussed in January 2022, when the infobox for the 'block' was removed. Official sources (2011 census and govt websites) indicate "Raj" has been dropped from the place name. Sources don't seem quite sufficient to satisfy GNG for the historical raj itself but the material does form part of the place/area's history. Suggest renaming the article "Sonbarsa, Saharsa"; reinstating infobox settlement; removing the raj infobox and keeping the existing text in a History section. Basically this amounts to a keep and move recommendation with presumed notability for the place under WP:GEOLAND. Rupples (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move - I concur with Rupples's assessment that this is something of a hijacked article. N.b. there's a Sonbarsa in Nepal that would be in need of hatnote disambiguation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:10, 10 August 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 Rowing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed pair. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Abe (rower)

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

fails WP:GNG. Notable for one Olympic event where he did not score, and I can't find any sources about him or his life. Jaguarnik (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Japan. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Japan at the 1936 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rowing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed pair. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS as he did not win a medal. Also fails WP:SPORTBASIC which requires "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (The event page is the richer redirect as it refelcts details of Abe's performance at each stage.) Cbl62 (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirect targets proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rowing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed pair. Per reasoning above. あやかなあ? (talk) 19:18, 2 August 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 07:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Archer Connection

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

This BET project has been 'coming soon' since its PR pickup announcement, but there hasn't been a bit of news about it since 2018 (and it's never appeared on BET+), and I would hope it's not being currently produced for obvious reasons. Attempted to PROD, but a buzzer-beater drive-by editor removed the PROD minutes before the end of the PROD period with no notes about why they did so. Since I can't double-PROD, here we are at AfD. Nate • (chatter) 18:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage found online, and it doesn't look like it'll release any time soon. Fails WP:GNG. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found since 2018 sourcing used, appears to have vaporized into thin air... Oaktree b (talk) 03:40, 10 August 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. Personally, I don't care for articles like this on person's whose notability is because they are wealthy. But three reliable sources should be sufficient to justify a person's notability. I think there is some promotional language in this article that could be toned down. For example, I don't think being a guest at the While House is a really strong indicator of notability. But that's my point of view and doesn't affect this closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Kamath

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

The page is repeatedly created with proven blocked, COI history. The majority of the sources are coming from Newswire and are not independent. Lordofhunter (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only see three reliables sources mainly Al Jazeera, Bloomberg and Forbes and do think the rest of the sources are not reliable enough to remain as an article. Untamed1910 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) The article was accepted by an AFC reviewer just a week back. How can an article which was reviewed at AFC needs to be deleted in just seven days? If there are any issues with the article then discuss on its talk page or fix it directly rather than nominating it multiple times for speedy deletion or AFD. 2) The subject is extensively covered by Indian National Media - Times of India, Economic Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV, Forbes and also by some International Media - Aljazeera, Bloomberg, Forbes and South China Morning Post. All of the aforementioned media are considered as reliable as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources . The article has more than 25 such sources which are considered as reliable at Wikipedia. Himalayan7914 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said only Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, Forbes, China Morning Post are listed as reliable source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Economic Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV, do not appear on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list, there is no way of knowing if Economic Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV are reliable enough. Untamed1910 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Untamed1910 , I think you haven't gone through the entire list properly. The Indian Express and The Hindu are also mentioned as most reliable (in the green legend) in the list. The article also has many more sources from the most reliable medias and today I have added a few more. I am listing down all the sources from the article by Most Reliable Media below for better understanding:

Al Jazeera - [30]

Bloomberg - [31] [32]

Barrons (Wall Street Journal) - [33]

Forbes - [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

Indian Express - [40] [41] [42]

South China Morning Post - [43] [44]

The New York Times - [45]

The Hindu - [46] [47] [48]

Yahoo Finance - [49]

There are many more such coverages from Indian National and Regional media from yellow legend section (no consensus on the reliability) too but they are considered as reputed here in India. However, I think the above coverages from the Most Reliable medias are more than sufficient to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Himalayan7914 (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Majority of sources shared are nothing more than interviews where there is no independent comment of a journalist. Example: Aljazeera, Bloomberg, barrons, forbes, Forbes published by outsider, interview, ForbesIndia Interview again, Story of non notable company which is already been deleted multiple times , Interview PTI News, PR Material published on various news, PR Newswire, again interview Lordofhunter (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Defiantly passing WP:GNG, this, this, and this looks good to me. And all of them are reliable sources. Forbes listed him as the self-made billionaire. Forbes India listed him 30 under 30. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 07:29, 13 August 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 Alejandro Brugués. I'm closing this as a Redirect, editors can take it from there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Inheritance (upcoming film)

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

"upcoming" since 2021, fails WP:NFF. Delete or move to DRAFT until an actual release.

PROD removed with comment "removing prod by User:Donaldd23; production and failure having attracted attention, take to Afd or draftify, maybe rename "unreleased"".

I'm not convinced that the coverage is significant enough to pass WP:NFF. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I'm not opposed to drafting the article. @Mushy Yank: I'm not sure how much "attracted attention" you're talking about? I mean a few websites reported that Netflix cancelled two completed films (this being one of them). No reason why and no plan to sell to other distributors were disclosed. If nothing comes out of it, we can always add a sentence about the unreleased film on the actor's pages.Mike Allen 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How much? Well, roughly 100 articles (in various languages) come out when you google '"The Inheritance" Brugués Netflix -wikipedia" (sites of various quality, obviously). Some sources on the page deal with the production, other sources with Netflix's decision. As to why Netflix decided to "drop" the film, this source in French said it was to sell it)). Many sources insist filming has been completed (there's another Inheritance film on Netflix, though, so it takes time to explore). Redirect could be OK but keeping the article because the film failed to be released so far and that it attracted "some" attention (notable failure being the/one reason to consider an unreleased film notable, as you know) would not shock me either. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we redirect, it would likely be better to create a page for the director and redirect there. Offhand it looks like he's probably notable. He directed [[Juan of the Dead] and Pooka Lives, for a start. I'll see what I can do on that end. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, there's an article for him now at Alejandro Brugués. I forgot to include some info about the film in question, lol. So redirect for now. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fixed that as well. I just merged some of the info from this article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, but a bit of a complex one. Redirect to the newly created director page Alejandro Brugués, and then move without leaving a redirect to The Inheritance (unreleased film). The move should be done per WP:UFILM to prevent keeping a misleading redirect per WP:R#D2. If a release ever comes, it can be moved to the proper dab for its release year for restoration at that point. Redirect seems better than Drafting in this case (in my opinion) because if it never finds a release, it will end up G13 deleted. -2pou (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:51, 10 August 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In situ electron microscopy

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

This article does not make any sense. There is nothing called "in situ electron microscopy" the same way there is nothing called "in situ x-ray diffraction". It is just the ability to use the EM while doing an experiment. The references are about that, doing an experiment while imaging or characterising, i.e., using the EM. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essentially an WP:OR topic name. UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Traditionally, electron microscopes examine samples in stable configurations, after careful preparation. The article is specifically about imaging with an electron microscope in a dynamic environment, like while an experiment is taking place. The topic has significant coverage separate from electron microscopy in general, see review article book1 book2 conference. I agree the article does not introduce the subject very clearly at the moment, but the topic has enough coverage that I think it can be improved. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 03:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Forbes72 Environmental scanning electron microscope is a good example of what are you trying to say when talking about developing a microscopy for a specific test. and - quoting the review article that you mentioned - "The recent advances in in situ methods, including liquid and gas sample environment, pump-probe ultrafast microscopy, nanomechanics and ferroelectric domain switching the aberration corrected electron optics as well as fast electron detector has opened new opportunities to extend the impact of in situ TEM in broad areas of research ranging from materials science to chemistry, physics and biology. In this article, we highlight the development of liquid environment electron microscopy .. (PS: I linked the developed EMs)

to expand on the example, the environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) is an example of in situ microscopy, specifically for studying samples in their natural or hydrated states. Traditional electron microscopes typically require samples to be in a vacuum, which can alter or damage certain materials or biological specimens. However, ESEM allows for imaging samples in a controlled environment with variable pressure, enabling observation of materials and biological samples without extensive sample preparation.

thus, "in situ microscopy" as a thing does not exist but developing instruments to allow for in situ testing exits. the article is about the first

The article should not exists the same way that an article about "Operando X-ray" should not. Cheers .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Environmental scanning electron microscope article does indeed mention in situ techniques. Along these lines, I guess you could try and merge all the in situ information into the individual articles for specific kinds of electron microscopes, as you seem to suggest. But since "in situ electron microscopy" is addressed as the main topic of secondary scholarly sources, having a similarly scoped article on Wikipedia mentioning the applications of in situ measurements for individual microscopes (TEM, ESEM etc.) is not just a a neologism. A singular "in situ electron microscope" might not exist as a distinct physical object, but I don't think that's a good reason to delete an article, since we have plenty of Wikipedia articles about scientific techniques. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 14:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick WP:BEFORE style search turns up a review article "Frontiers of in situ electron microscopy" and and a couple of books In-situ Electron Microscopy: Applications in Physics, Chemistry and Materials Science, and chapter 1 of "In-situ Electron Microscopy at High Resolution" as decent-looking secondary RS for the field of in situ EM. The field thus seems notable. I think the crux of the dispute here is the researcher's POV. For some, EM technology is most important and the specimens studied are secondary. For others, the specimens are the important thing and the kind of EM used is secondary. For the latter, the ability to analyze specimen dynamics in situ is the important thing and so for them, situ EM is a bona fide field. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be particularly good to see response to the most recent sources posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep as I searched in the browser I got many results in this topic so keep this article as it can be improved MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity of sources is not relevant. Quality, with regard to WP:42 is. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 16 August 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 00:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dianelis Carbonell

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. No indication of notability. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 3 August 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. The main points of contention are whether the NYT coverage is significant and whether the TechCrunch article is independent. This is ultimately down to subjective judgment, and since all of the discussion is policy-based, we look to the numerical tally which is slightly in favor of keeping but not quite enough to declare a consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KumoSpace

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

This does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and is written like an advertisement- most of 'Workflow' section should be removed, and most of 'History' is PR speak, which leaves very little for an article. Qcne (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Relevant guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and none of the references meet it. The NYT piece is close but the company is not the main focus of the article. Everything else is routine coverage such as funding announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accordance with WP:GNG standards, the page meets the notability criteria as it primarily discusses the software, rather than the company. Specifically, the sources discuss the software. The New York Times piece, while not entirely focused on the company, is rather huge and gives in-depth coverage of the software and its influence on the virtual office software industry. I found several books with good descriptions of the software and added one review in a new section. Furthermore, I've integrated several credible sources in other languages, such as Chinese from 36kr.com, as well as numerous academic papers that explore the software's impact on student studies, business workflows, and more. As such, the page meets the basic notability requirements and could be restructured to resemble a software-centric entry more closely. --BoraVoro (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is not about the company or the software. It is about virtual meetings and discusses the company and software in context with several other companies. Neither the software or the company are the main focus of the article so it would not meet ORGCRIT. "Descriptions" of the software in other sources fall short as well. It would be the same as considering a company directory listing (Crunchbase, Bloomberg, etc.) for notability. Are you able to point out any specific references other than these you feel meet ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added 2 more sources to the page, a review from a book and some academia papers where Kumospace is the subject. I recognize that nuances around guidelines and what may or may not meet specific criteria can be tricky. I've tried my best to address the notability concerns, I believe a third-party evaluation will provide clarity. Thank you! BoraVoro (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with reservations. First of all, the very lengthy New York Times magazine piece does not make the company the focus but it does talk a lot about the company. The article is about why people need something like KumoSpace. Common sense says it counts. Read it for yourself.

There's a TechCrunch article about KumoSpace; our WP:RSNP note on TechCrunch warns about variability in the reliability of their articles: see WP:TECHCRUNCH. I read the article; it's by a named staff reporter and I judge it to be independent. Nominally, it's about raising money but primarily it's about KumoSpace and what they're doing.

There are citations to journal articles about using KumoSpace in the classroom -- I'm not sure how they fit into our WP:NCORP scheme.

My reservation is that by tech standards, this is a small company in a very big space; they raised $21 million in financing. The tech giants have more coins than that just in their sofas. A personal beef I have with WP:NCORP is that ignores size in favor of meeting some very specific citation requirements. We end up with articles about dive bars in Saskatoon because people wrote interesting profile pieces about them. We coverage of Fortune 500 companies because when they fire 1000 people, takeover a competitor or earn $1 billion, it's "routine." Ultimately my !vote is about the rules, not my personal preferences so KumoSpace is a keep.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the NYT article and TechCrunch article. I believe you are saying you have an issue with NCORP which is understandable as I often have an internal conflict with it myself (I think we raised the bar high to keep out spam and wound up keeping out some good companies as a result). Unfortunately, the guideline is what it is and would need to be changed before it can be applied as such (lower standards than currently written). Regardless, let's assume that the NYT and TechCrunch meet ORGCRIT. If that is the case, I don't feel that both together would be strong enough for NCORP. If two sources similar to these could meet NCORP, we could have thousands more articles on companies that otherwise would not qualify. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the NYT, along with other US and foreign articles, provides significant coverage of KumoSpace, illustrating its relevance among virtual meetings industry. It's notable for a software that academic references emphasize its impact in the educational sector. I'd rather strongly agree with the above arguments of notability and believe the article is more about a software. In this context, and given its diverse references, it meets the general notability criteria. --Emma so Bergst222 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me specifically which "other US and foreign articles" meet the criteria spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CNMall41 Andre🚐 18:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is enough coverage to support notability in my opinion, the NYTimes article coverage is excessively discounted by CNMall41 and not trivial per A. B. Here is another source from MIT which I do not see discussed thus far: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/08/1035081/facebook-horizons-oculus-zoom-fatigue/. Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material but again the coverage is not trivial. Plus there seems to be a surprising degree of international coverage which I have not really checked yet, but indicates there is more than enough to support inclusion of the article on Wikipedia. - Indefensible (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material" - Then how would it meet WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have to use our judgement rather than strictly follow imperfect guidelines blindly. - Indefensible (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is concerning. We use our judgment comparing guidelines to available sources to see if they meet those guidelines. We cannot simply vote contrary to those guidelines because we feel they are "imperfect." That is circumventing Wikipedia guidelines. WP:IDLI would apply here and should be avoided. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging your concern, however I stand by my comment. As I previously wrote in regards to a political article, having a single quote (for example) should not be enough to invalidate an entire article on the basis of being primary. This coverage from MIT's Tech Review is additional to NYTimes' article which is also discussed by others above (I am merely in agreement with A. B. upon reviewing it), and other sources. Plus the considerable foreign sources add support for notability. - Indefensible (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you are standing behind your comment to not follow a guideline you feel is imperfect? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am standing by my comments above, particularly the original review where I supported keeping the article. - Indefensible (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of how well the references available on this subject meet, or do not meet, the relevant guidelines such as WP:N and WP:CORP would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It is notable that the Keep !voters above pretty much acknowledge that the sources don't meet NCORP. Most of the information discusses the "newness" of the VR experience and the software, there's no Independent Content about the company and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After making some research in line with WP:BEFORE, it’ s evident that Kumospace is primarily recognized as a software program and multiple sources treat it as such (quite often naming it as an alternative to Zoom). I also count as reliable sources the research scholarly papers from universities around the globe which explores/examines this soft, e.g. how Kumospace impacts Grade 9 students’ academic performance (published in the double-blind peer-reviewed American Journal of Education and Technology. As for me, it is important to keep in mind that as the article is not about the company only, but also about the software. Thus, it seems to meet the WP:GNG. I also slightly rearrange the page's structure. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're almost evenly split on consensus between delete and keep. Relisting for another go around
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to see how the NYT article could possibly be used to support any coverage-based criteria for evaluating N, given that it hardly has any information about KumoSpace, much less "directly and in detail". The TechCrunch article, on the other hand, is for the most part "Martin says", "Martin posits", "Martin stresses", "Martin argues". Martin being Brett Martin, co-founder and president of the company, it is unclear how we should consider it independent. E-Palli is not listed as a predatory publisher, but there are indications that suggest that it dubious. I am not convinced that any of its journals should be considered RS, and I am not aware of its inclusion in relevant indicies. In any case, despite being independent, it is most certainly also WP:PRIMARY, both of which are required in SIRS. I can't find a basis for lower standards for software as put forward by BoraVoro and Old-AgedKid (the WP:NSOFT essay notably directs us to WP:NPRODUCT for commercial software) and the general notability guideline is actually quite similar, if not quite so explicit about the required depth to be considered significant (understandably so, since the primary criteria of the SNGs were how it was originally formulated. I don't see an argument for retention that aligns with the relevant guidelines, so I will have to recommend a delete. (edit conflict) yeah probably my fault for taking so long but y'all could leave some of this stuff in OAFD for like a day or so, grumble grumble Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of substantial NYT coverage, a TechCrunch feature, and multiple other independent sources makes this a clear keep in my view. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's your problem right there. We don't combine sources for the purposes of meeting the criteria. We need multiple sources whereby *each* source meets *all* the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WilsonP NYC:, based on your limited participation on Wikipedia, I am wondering if you could expand on how NYT, TechCrunch, and (multiple) other sources meet WP:SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Techcrunch, in the form of actual bylined editorial articles (versus Crunchbase and so on) is a significant source of original reporting on technology companies and (despite many objections to the boosterish tone in this discussion and elsewhere) is usually considered the main source of news on technology companies. The feature there is significant, independent, reliable and secondary.

A major NYT Magazine feature obviously meets all four criteria, the NYT magazine is one if the most high profile sources in the English language. Thus the argument taking place here is if the subject's inclusion in this feature is a passing mention or a significant part of the article. My judgement is that it's significant, but it's certainly arguable.

The combination of those two, plus other credible citations, meets notability in my view. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There seems to be confusion about SIRS. While TechCrunch is a reliable source, the one cited is a routine announcement of funding with churnalism. For New York Times, this is not about KumoSpace. It talks about it in briefly in context with virtual meetings so it fails SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'd prefer to keep it. I enjoyed the interesting discussion and do see the issues with "multiple reliable sources", and an argument that some non-fiction books describe the software. I also cannot say that the New York Times newspaper merely mentions it briefly. Their media coverage is comprehensive enough to write a short, neutral article about kumospace on Wikipedia, if to apply such a verification method. However, that's not my point. I was surprised to find out that kumospace is already a part of several university courses (Queen's University Belfast, Queen Mary University of London) on "Profile Building/Networking". Specifically, an entire session is dedicated to kumospace software, while Cambridge University uses kumospace for teaching its Networking course. This, in itself, speaks to its notability. Mozzcircuit (talk) 14:09, 25 August 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 List of Cuban football players who have defected to the United States. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Riquelme

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

The subject made at least two appearances for the Cuba women's national football team before defecting to the U.S. in 2018. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cuban football players who have defected to the United States.--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:38, 3 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ollancy Arrebato

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

The subject has made at least three appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 3 August 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 Robinsons Malls#Philippines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsons Pangasinan

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

Unsure if this mall is notable- it has had an advert tag since 2012 and does read like an advertisement. Sources are primary or non-notable. I do not think it passes GNG. Qcne (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robinsons Malls#Philippines: No good results from WP:BEFORE to pass GNG. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. --- Tito Pao (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robinsons Malls#Philippines per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 4 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yesmi Rodríguez

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

The subject made at least three appearances for the Costa Rica women's national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Costa Rica. JTtheOG (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 3 August 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 List of Guatemala women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mariandre Rodas

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

Redirect to List of Guatemala women's international footballers. The subject made at least one appearance for the Guatemala women's national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this, though it's from a non-independent source. JTtheOG (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Guatemala. JTtheOG (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 19:09, 3 August 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 List of Chad international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole Djekruassem

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

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. One official appearance for the Chad national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 19:09, 3 August 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 List of Chad international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appolinaire Djingabeye

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

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. Four official appearances for the Chad national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No refs found at all, only player lists. Redirect is ok Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 19:09, 3 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary German

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to only have the one novel out and I can find no coverage of this author in the last decade. There is a single review of his novel in Publishers Weekly (link) plus the Vice documentary, but by itself that's not enough to prove he meets notability guidelines. That said, he's still a young author so this article may simply be a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. If he publishes more works and receives corresponding coverage proving notability, we can always recreate the article. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:25, 3 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GeoAccess

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Doesn't seem to have enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Business, Companies, Computing, United States of America, and Kansas. UtherSRG (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not too much coverage, the best one is the Inc profile, but there is just not enough here. Royal88888 (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing that meets ORGCRIT. Would suggest a redirect to UnitedHealth Group which purchased it in 2002. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 8 August 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. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weightlifting at the 2023 Arab Games

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Contested drafting, bringing it here because of that. I would support a drafting first before deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Oman, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and United Arab Emirates. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's an international event and likely more coverage exists, just that requires searching in various non-English languages where search results are already likely limited.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too detailed relative to the sport and event. Weightlifting at all Arab Games and annual editions of the games is as much detail as we should carry for THIS sport and event. No objection that something here will be upmerged. gidonb (talk) 00:51, 9 August 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!} 17:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an international sporting event and coverage should be out there. Examples that I found in just a quick search included this fairly detailed write-up of the weights lifted by different athletes. Then there will be national news coverage, e.g. this. There's no indication that the info is false, just lacking inline refs. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since other sports of the 2023_Arab_Games have their own articles, weightlifing could have it's own. Meanwhile meets GNG as well.Ma.Sa.54 (talk) 22:18, 12 August 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Adhoori Mohabbat

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

Article needs to be moved to draft space, but earlier draft article already exists. After remove a forum post, the only source in article is a basic database dump page. Several good sources are needed, hence should be moved to draft. Ravensfire (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Ravensfire (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. Mccapra (talk) 22:23, 9 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerbleederz

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

Non-notable music act. No sourcing found in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are four reputable sources already on the page, as many as a lot of other bands with pages on Wikipedia have that go undeleted. Seems unnecessary to nominate for deletion. Lewishhh (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sources cited up to WP:RS standards? The coverage seems non-trivial but I'm not familiar with the editorial standards of any of those sites. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcebot says the Clash is fine, the rest likely aren't. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dork is a UK based music magazine. Louder Than War is a music and culture website. Gigwise is a music news site. All are reliable sources for music news run by journalists. Nothing cited is marketing, biased, self-published, or user-generated. Lewishhh (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The sources already in the article show that their album has been reviewed substantially by some reliable punk/alternative publications. However, I am a bit concerned about WP:TOOSOON and WP:SIGCOV because those album reviews are low on encyclopedic and biographical info on the band itself, as if the reviewers didn't have any interest in digging deeper. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Needs more citations, I don't think the current coverage is enough.Naomijeans (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Glad to see this band represented on Wikipedia, especially in light of efforts to address gender balance on WP (which WP:TOOSOON has been proven to create bias). I recalled that the band have played festival internationally and added those in. Some of these festivals and the band's record label are represented on WP so would expect this also helps demonstrate notability within these contexts. Rhagfyr (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Ideally, sources should appear on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two citations from Punknews.org as it's on the aforementioned list. When was the list's content last reviewed? The sites I've mentioned above could easily go on there. Lewishhh (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This page needs a massive overhaul, but the band does pass WP:SIGCOV.

BoxxyBoy (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the citations that were added recently... also discounting the "weak keep" !vote made by the blocked editor above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - maybe the references such as Dork, Gigwise, Punknews, etc. are not the most reliable but still good enough in my opinion to support for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:30, 10 August 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. I don't see a consensus here. That doesn't prevent a future discussion of a Merger to Drag Queen Story Hour#United States or another article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Divinity

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

Per WP:ORG for an organization to be notable, they must pass WP:SIRS - which requires multiple articles with in depth coverage.

The article currently is a list of events the group has been associated with protesting, because the group is only mentioned in news articles where it's mentioned they were attending. They weren't the only groups there, so it's "and this group was there" throw-away mentions.

There is no in depth coverage of the group in reliable secondary sources to fill out any additional information - who is the group, what is their history, do they have a mission?

This also falls under guidelines for WP:BLP1E - the protests are more notable than the group itself and WP:BLPCRIME - there have been a arrests at protests with no follow up coverage, I can't determine if charges were ever brought against the people arrested. Denaar (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, the sources already in the article are sufficient to satisfy the GNG. Second, nom's deletion rationales are inapplicable. This is not a BLP, so BLP1E can't possibly apply. Even if it were a BLP it wouldn't apply because multiple events are involved. Also the mentions aren't passing. The NYT article alone has two paragraphs on the background and origin of the group. For the same reason BLPCRIME doesn't apply -- this is not a BLP. Again, even if it were the criterion wouldn't apply since the article doesn't purport to be about the crimes, so why would it matter if there were continuing coverage of them? Central and Adams (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should have just said it doesn't pass WP:GNG's significant coverage requirement: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Right now, we only have trivial mentions, there are only 66 results in Google News so it's a pretty short list to go through, and there is a video game with the same name and not all those results are related. Denaar (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your position. Clearly we disagree on whether the mentions are trivial or not, but we'll see what our colleagues think! Central and Adams (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP policy applies to any page, so the nominator's mention of WP:BLPCRIME seems applicable here, because this part of the policy emphasizes the serious consideration needed before including material—in any article that suggests any nonpublic figure has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured; at minimum, this policy consideration seems to emphasize the limited sustained coverage available about the group generally and various arrests reported specifically within the article; I also think it is a relevant consideration during a selective merge process, if that occurs. Beccaynr (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all of the sources cited are especially useful or reliable, but as the last person said the coverage is more than passing and there are several sources. There may not be much on the group's history or mission, but that's because this seems to be an internet-organized all-purpose community of bullies that happened to give themselves a name, not a proper organization with a cohesive guiding principle. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With some Duckducking I was able to find multiple sources covering the subject for at least two paragraphs each fairly quickly, so I think we should be able to meet WP:GNG here, even if the sources in the article itself were lacking, which, judging by the other !votes, they are not. I would add that having clear aims or a large track record are not requirements for meeting notability guidelines.----Licks-rocks (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Drag_Queen_Story_Hour#United_States:

I found a June 2023 Institute for Strategic Dialogue report with several paragraphs focused on the group at pp. 11-12, describing them as "The leading group behind anti-drag activity in the state of New York" and comparing the group to other groups
The January 2023 Anti-Defamation League report, "Online Amplifiers of Anti-LGBTQ+ Extremism" cited in the article has a one-sentence mention in the Blaze Media section, "At one such event, Stein was seen promoting “Guardians of Divinity” member David Nieves..."
The NYT coverage in the article, Foes of Drag Queen Story Hours Invade New York Councilman’s Home (Dec. 20, 2022) notes "at least 141 protests, attacks or “significant threats” against drag events in the United States so far this year, according to a report published by GLAAD" and also discusses "the Guardians of Divinity, a far-right organization" as "believed to be behind many of the protests in New York" and briefly mentions its origin "opposing pandemic-era vaccine and mask mandates," and states the group has "shown up at several Drag Story Hour events in Jackson Heights, Queens, and they also disrupted a community forum in Astoria hosted by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."
A variety of sources in the article focus on the Dec. 2022 event, e.g. Vice (Dec. 20, 2022, does not mention Guardians of Divinity); AMNY (Dec. 20, 2022, does not mention Guardians of Divinity); The Advocate (Dec. 24, 2022), Guardians of Divinity association attributed to a belief by Bottcher); WP:DAILYBEAST (Dec. 28, 2022), citing WP:NYPOST to identify Guardians of Divinity involvement.
Other sources in the article do not mention the group, e.g. Astoria Post (Jan. 18, 2023); Patch (Feb. 2, 2023); Upper East Site (Feb 1, 2023).
The article includes TimesLedger aka QNS coverage on Dec. 30, 2022, "Proud Boys protest drag story hour event at Jackson Heights Library" and Jewish Telegraphic Agency coverage "These Jews are defending Drag Story Hour against far-right protestors. Here’s why." (Jan 6, 2023) - this type of coverage seems to help support a merge to where protests and counter-protests can be presented with appropriate context, per WP:PAGEDECIDE.

This local organization with coverage that appears to begin in December 2022 may become "nationally well-known" (per WP:CLUB) in the future, but at this time, there does not appear to be sufficient support for a standalone article (e.g. with "national or even international notice" and "widespread attention" as described for non-commercial organizations). Beccaynr (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I voted Keep above, but you make a very convincing argument here, and I would be fine with a merge on these grounds. Wouldn't that first report already qualify as SIGCOV though? It provides a fairly clear-cut summary of all the important information about the group. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first report offers more in-depth coverage than other sources, but also helps identify the group as a local organization and as one of several groups that "began to pivot to more anti-drag activity" since late 2022 - this report also states, "as vaccine mandates and lockdowns fall out of the news cycle (and public attention), anti-drag activity may become a more consistent mobilizing force" and this is part of why I suggest a merge (and redirect to preserve the article history) - the ISD report indicates the group is part of a trend that has broadly received attention and continues to be monitored. From my view, it seems possible that WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the group may exist in the future, but for now, we appear to have more sustained and in-depth coverage of the broader context that also predates coverage of this specific group (See e.g. the Nov. 21 2022 GLAAD report cited by the NYT). Beccaynr (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Drag_Queen_Story_Hour#United_States per rationale of Beccaynr. Sal2100 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively for the reasons presented above. As a stand alone topic it's not clear this is notable.

Springee (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge parts to Drag_Queen_Story_Hour#United_States per the information provided above. Attention whore (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Central and Adams and Licks-rocks — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Drag panic would be a better merge target than Drag Queen Story Hour § United States, surely, if we end up merging — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:48, 15 August 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing a full article about them, only passing mentions. Mostly about stuff the group has done. I don't see a merge as being valuable. I'd say this is PROMO, but it's neutral in tone and rather helpful as a description, but the group doesn't seem notable, at this time. Should US politics continue down the same path, we'll likely see more from this entity... Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 17 August 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 meeting GEOLAND is generally sufficient for keeping an article, we do require evidence in the form of reliable sources that the topic is in fact a legally recognized settlement: that seems to be missing here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enkhali

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

PROD declined for this essentially fallacious article on a non-existent Dubai community. This is not a notable place, the article does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:GEOLAND, the place named is not mentioned in any secondary sources and most definitely not in the publication given in the bibliography. One of a number of essentially fallacious place articles created by this blocked user, even the image is a generic picture recaptioned to be of 'Enkhali'. For some reason this got missed in the cleanup effort following the creator's block. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my reasoning on my prod. "As a community with a population of only 2, only sourced with passing mentions in statistical databases, I feel this community is entirely non-notable." Bensci54 (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may "feel" non-notable, but it clearly passes WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place, which is one of our lowest notability standards, and for good reason. Problem is, it's in Sector 6 per the census, and there's not a lot more we can say about it that I can find - the deletion rationale isn't invalid. Since the creator has been blocked I don't really care if this is deleted - just want to note that whatever happens, anyone who wants to re-create this article would be doing so on a topic we've deemed notable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It not only "feels" non-notable, it "IS" non-notable. It's claimed to be in the middle of the totally, utterly unpopulated area between Awir and Lahbab - it's a desert. It's not a village or a community or a recognised place - it's desert. Seriously, dunes and camel camps. Desert. I quite often drive past there. There's not even a signpost off the E44 to mark 'Enkhali' - it's not even searchable on Google maps. It's all sandy and deserty and, well, deserted. It has no houses. Nada. Zero. Zilch. It's as unpopulated as it's possible to be these days in Dubai, the emirate. Nobody's deemed it notable for anything - it's a wholly unpopulated place. It's the Norwegian Blue of populated places, nailed to its perch - in the desert. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. It's a populated, legally recognised place. Is it worth keeping as this stub? Probably not, but I have no problem if anyone wants to re-create this if there's anything else we can say about it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You remember the great John Carter train crash? My run of >150 UAE AfDs? This user was on the way to creating another one, having got hold of a PDF from Dubai Municipality and then creating articles about 'places' he found in there. Whatever, wherever 'Enkhali' is supposed to be, it's not a village or populated place and its existence isn't supported by any RS. Between Awir and Lahbab there is literally nothing bar a palace - with the vast majority of the land to that side of the road between Awir and Lahbab cordoned off around that palace - and some civil infrastructure - there's a place name Nakhali (a concrete plant named for it) just as you get to Lahbab, arguably subsumed by the expansion of Lahbab. Anyway, that's me - as always with appreciation for your concerns re: GEOLAND (I have saved many a place at AfD having gleefully nicked your arguments! ;) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you absolutely positive it doesn't contain a protected Norwegian Blue nesting site or maybe a ministry-approved Silly Walks Training Academy? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
You can never be 100% certain these days. We live in terrible times... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question. @Alexandermcnabb: Is there a list of political subdivisions published by the government that we can refer to? In some Canadian provinces, for example, an area too sparsely populated to have a municipal government is called a "local improvement district"? It would be nice to know how the Dubai government characterizes Enkhali. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator who knows this place. Or rather, knows this place's non-notability. Desolate, God-forsaken, lifeless places like this serve a vital role: they help hold the Earth together. In this part of the world, that's all some places are able to do. It's a noble and essential task; if just one of them let go, the Earth's crust might begin failing; Alexander would be among the first to go. So credit is due them. Just not articles without reliable sources.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over dozens of AFDs tonight, most of them irresolvably divided between Keepers/Deleters, I needed a laugh, thanks, A. B.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete This thing smells of fraud. There is a reference to it in the census document, but it's striking that the reference is used only to justify the area of this place (whatever it is), with the population of two and the population density of zero conveniently tucked into the infobox. Meanwhile, the original source of the image of the camel does not mention this place or for that matter any other place other than "unnamed road", and there's no source given for the location of this place. Given that it was created by someone with a history of such frauds, I have to wonder why anyone is defending it. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe:

SportingFlyer -- a very experienced editor, editing in good faith. I trust them 100%, ethics-wise. I suspect that if they ever did decide go to the dark side, it wouldn't be on behalf of a place like this.

Jad Krimeed -- the article's creator was a problem and is now indefinitely blocked.

The Camel -- the camel wandered away.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just interpreting our policy very literally - it's a legally recognised place, so it's technically eligible for an article. Whether this is a good or bad thing is left as an exercise to the reader. SportingFlyer T·C 22:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's more like you are interpreting the one official source literally, which our experience with GNS and GNIS and the Iranian census leads me to reject. That one word in a column heading is not good enough; even were it not a translation I would doubt it. Look, two people is a community only in the most mathematically reductive sense, and even then I have to assume they live in two separate houses. Also, it's only a guideline anyway, but in any case the history of these discussions is that we have required more evidence of a settlement than a tag or column heading in a government listing. Mangoe (talk) 22:48, 6 August 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim van Assema

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

Footballer with 24 minutes in Allsvenskan. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Though (brief) news exist [50] [51] [52], he has done nothing of note. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sv:Tim van Assema. Govvy (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient sourcing in the Swedish entry. gidonb (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails GNG because of a total lack of significant coverage. The sourcing on the Swedish article is routine/not independent/of dubious reliability. Dougal18 (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL and still a young player. We obviously need to add more text and sources, like the Swedish article. Let's at least give it some time. // Mattias321 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NFOOTBALL does not exist anymore. Giant Snowman 17:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per above. I found [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], amning maner more Swedish and Dutch sources. Young player with Allsvenskan experience with ongoing career. Article need simprovement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Dougal18 about the sourcing in the sv wiki article (as well as the links above from Das osmnezz - although some of those links are paywalled so I can't properly evaluate them). Article fails WP:GNG due to a lack of in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one source from those listed above contains non-paywalled non-trivial content, but it's also just a brief transactional interview from when he was 17 and so fails YOUNGATH anyway. Everything else appears to be routine sports news. JoelleJay (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with above sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources being inaccessible (e.g. due to paywalls) doesn't exclude them from being used to establish notability (WP:NEXIST is related); could we get some feedback on those paywalled sources from someone with access?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 17:28, 9 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flutlicht

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

Non-notable DJ, fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried a .ch website search, nothing turns up other than this [58] about a music festival and I'm not even sure it's the same group. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from discogs and some random sites, no reliable independent sources for notability.CourtseyDriver (talk) 23:27, 3 August 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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab University Law College

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

This article isn't talking about the college but about listing of people purported to be from the college. A similar list is located in here: Category:Punjab University Law College alumni. At present, there is no notability claim about the college; a list of famous people from there does not show the college's notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Education can be understood but why "India" there are many Indian Alumni of this particular institute and I've also added citations Dawood Ch 471 (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What could I do to prevent it from deletion? It was created Specifically as an Alumni page but I can make it a descriptional page of that college if that would prevent it from deletion. Dawood Ch 471 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it can. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've stubified the article and I'm confident that more sources can be developed beyond the few I've used. Jahaza (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- The article now has some sources. Though needs improvement.

- @ ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact), can you confirm you followed WP:BEFORE and did search for potential sources and failed to find any.

- Note as per WP:N: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any."

- I would find it very odd that there are not many adequate sources for the law school that seems to have produced the most prominant lawyers in a country. Jagmanst (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article certainly needs rewriting and trimming, but the topic is notable per WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Need some formating but Notable.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep this article. I don't understand Why nominate this article for deletion?--Fahads1982 (talk) 10:11, 9 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sattai Duraimurugan

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

Fails WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV. - SUN EYE 1 16:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Tamil Nadu. - SUN EYE 1 16:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator SaltlakeAlt was blocked for advertising. - SUN EYE 1 16:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe he meets the GNG based on the sources in the article and the extensive coverage revealed through the Google News search. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts Those were WP:ROUTINE coverage about his arrests. I had planned to add it to my rationale before another editor removed the section about his arrests. There is no WP:SIGCOV about this subject. - SUN EYE 1 20:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe arrests for political speech, criticism, or even threats are WP:ROUTINE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very common in India to prevent civil disorders, see Section 153A of the Indian penal code - SUN EYE 1 05:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criminalising speech to prevent "civil" disorders or stifle political speech is not routine. If multiple RS are reporting on the incident, it's not routine like a traffic accident, loitering, or theft. The article that you reference and the cases it lists shows prosecution under the code is not an every day thing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The maximum is WP:1EVENT case, according to the news. Suitskvarts (talk) 08:06, 23 August 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!} 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:10, 28 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ikot Mkpang

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

WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of meeting WP:NPLACE: that this place is legally recognised and not just mentioned in online databases. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Nigeria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: at first glance, this looks very non-notable on a satellite image (assuming Google went to the right place)

This brings back painful memories of a very long contentious AfD about a similar uninhabited place on the map in Nigeria:

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnaa, Nigeria (3rd nomination)

It didn't help that there was some involvement with a troll group.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's our List of villages in Cross River State article. There is an "Ikot Mkpang Esighi" village listed in Bakassi, however that district is much further away from Calabar and now part of Cameroon. There's no other "Ikot Mkpang" on the list.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:17, 2 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal Knowledge Core

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. An impact factor is listed, but the journal is not indexed in any Clarivate database, so this is fake. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator, removing the IF and adding some references that either are not independent or don't mention the journal at all. Therefore PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Brazil. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This clearly has no significance for the English Wikipedia, but I thought it might conceivably be significant in Brazil or Portugal, but I can't find anything. Athel cb (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help: This is my first time editing and putting up an article on Wikipedia and I apologize maybe I was a little hasty. I ask for advice if possible for future attempts. I wanted to add scientific open-access journals that are in Brazil to have more visibility due to the difficulties we have here with exposing information outside Brazil. That was my only purpose but I guess I jumped the gun. I will need more time to make these journals get acknowledged and advise them to go through procedures for these changes. I started with the journal because I liked its content and youtube videos that were very knowledgeable. Thank you for your time, thoughts, and future counseling. GusSamaha (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checkout this Wikiproject:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals
You may want to introduce yourself and your goals at the talk page:
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals
That's a "Wikiproject". (Wikipédia:Projetos on pt.wikipedia).

I'd offer to help but I know little about journals.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. Indexed nowhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any sourcing that might save this through GNG rather than through NJOURNALS. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — could not find any significant independent coverage or entries in selective indexes. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:53, 7 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Topalian

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

Non-notable former gymnast. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNAST. Let'srun (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this [59]. Not extenstive. It seems she was the first Armenian women from outside the Soviet Bloc to compete at the Olympics [60] and a brief mention in Life magazine [61]. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked in the Library of Congress newspaper archive, nothing found. Tried a NY state newspaper archive, nothing. I don't think she's at GNG. Was never popular enough as an athlete. Oaktree b (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A few newspapers published a photo of her with boxers Archie Slaten and Charles Adkins on their way to the Olympics, but I'm having trouble finding much more. pburka (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a note, Topalian was her married name. I added a couple refs that sketch in a few details. Penny Richards (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as additional work has been done on this article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only found trivial mentions, using both her married and maiden names. Would prefer a redirect to Gymnastics at the 1952 Summer Olympics or 1952 Summer Olympics. but would be fine with deletion as well. Jacona (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverted my close. There's an editor seeking to weigh in, which is sufficient for a 3rd relist if we may achieve consensus and potential further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are severely deficient for meeting GNG. In the article: 1 (sports-reference.com): stats N. 2 (The Item): single-sentence photo caption on her and two others N. 3 (Palm Beach Post): wedding anniversary announcement N. 4 (Stuart News): local obituary N. Mentioned in AfD: Us Weekly: single-sentence photo caption N. Armenian Olympians: From Athens to Athens: single sentence in a self-published book N. Life: single-sentence photo caption N. It seems all details on her life are sourced to the primary, non-independent anniversary announcement and obituary, which is not acceptable.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG per JoelleJay's source analysis. I support a redirect if a suitible target can be found, but the two suggested above do not mention Topalian in their articles. Carson Wentz (talk) 02:26, 28 August 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 07:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Stageberg

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG nor WP:NCOLLATH as a former collegiate gymnast. Let'srun (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Florida, and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 16 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Seich

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

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NSPORT as a former gymnast. Let'srun (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Nebraska, and New Jersey. Let'srun (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria of WP:NGYMNASTICS do not appear to be satisfied, nor does there appear to be material that would meet a general claim of notability, either in the article or available using a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 2 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phillippa Williamson

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

Local politician in UK - Meets neither WP:POLITICIAN ("Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability") or WP:GNG - where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? - Most of the sourcing is routine or passing mentions. Paul W (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete. Plenty of news about her in the various local Lancashire newspapers, but nothing nationally that I can find. Qcne (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County council is not a level of government that guarantees "inherent" notability per WP:NPOL — the notability test for a county councillor is not "she exists", but "her work on the county council has been externally analyzed by reliable sources to a depth and degree that would make her a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for county councillors". But that's not what's being shown here, as the article is just written like a résumé, says nothing to suggest any reason why anybody outside of Lancashire needs to know about her, and is based almost entirely on primary sources rather than WP:GNG-building coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:55, 5 August 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 Companion (Doctor Who). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Jones (Doctor Who)

AfDs for this article:

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

While a companion and a notable character in universe, Sam has very little sourcing, and a search for sources yields next to no results. While the article cites a pair of books, they aren't used for any citations, and as I don't own the books, it's up in the air on how much they actually discuss the article's subject in depth. She's listed at the Companion article, so a redirect there is probably the best AtD right now. That being said, if anyone can verify those books, there's an argument for the article being kept, but as it stands, I don't think the article really justifies its existence. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of Dr Who companions (characters). No reception, the article is just a plot summary with a list of media that character appeared in, thus failing WP:GNG as written.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per Piotrus. Not enough reliable reception to pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:33, 6 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Metcalf

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

Non-notable former gymnast that does not have the significant coverage to meet WP:GNG nor WP:NCOLLATH. Let'srun (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Arizona, and California. Let'srun (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage that meets WP:GNG. She also fails to meet either WP:NGYMNAST or WP:NCOLLATH. Merely being on a college team does not show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 16 August 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 Companion (Doctor Who). (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fey Truscott-Sade

AfDs for this article:

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

While a rather notable character in universe and a Companion, the article cites no sources and my BEFORE didn't turn up any results. It's highly possible that some information on things such as development of the character may exist in physical sources, but I don't believe that it's enough to justify this character's article existing separately. She's listed at both the Companions and Supporting Doctor Who characters article, so a redirect would be a viable alternative to deletion. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced, and they do not seem to have the sources available that are required for notability. I would not be opposed to a redirect if a good target is found. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Pokelego999: Can you explain why you withdrew your first AfD on this subject? Let'srun (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short, I nominated too many AfDs at once when I first nominated this, alongside many other articles. I ended up withdrawing many that hadn't been replied to as a result. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have Women in Doctor Who, p. 164, and Companions - Fifty Years of Doctor Who Assistants been considered as secondary sources? There's also a short mention in Encyclopedia of Weird War Stories, p. 59. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell of source three, it seems to be a passing mention, and the Companions book doesn't seem to go beyond basic plot information. I'm unsure of Women in Doctor Who as I can't access Page 164 in question, but even still, I don't think these are enough to justify the article. Even if Women in Doctor Who gives a boatload of info and analysis, it's one source as the entirety of the character's reception. There'd need to be more there, and unless it exists in physical media, nothing else could be found. The other two sources would be handy for discussing background information in the article more than anything. I just don't think it's enough for the article to stand on. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: So aside from the fact, that some plot summary is fine when balanced by real-world commentary, the question would be, where would the content from Women in Doctor Who go? I guess it's an academic question for now as no such content is yet present. I guess it could go to Companion (Doctor Who), but would break the current page structure. Daranios (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect as WP:ATD. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV, but there is a valid redirect target where this can be mentioned. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I guess to Companion (Doctor Who), for the time being. We have one extended secondary source and one with plot summary (+one comment on bisexuality), so there is something encyclopedic to cover on the character, but it seems below the WP:GNG threshold so far. The page history should be preserved for future use, and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 07:22, 7 August 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. The consensus is to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cwej: Down the Middle

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

Non-notable small press spinoff for a minor book character from 30 years ago. Few citations, all from press releases, Twitter and Facebook, and much discussion of things which may or may not happen in future

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Heavy disagree as someone who wrote the article. There's is an established precedent for including spin-offs such as these, such as Downtime, Sil and the Devil Seeds of Arodor, etc. Plus Cwej is very much not a minor character that was just "from thirty years ago"; he's a full fledged companion that appeared in dozens of novels in the official book range and recently appeared in Big Finish adaptations that came out around 5 or so years ago. And this article includes citations from Associated Press, Goshen News, and KHON-TV, and one of the Twitter citations is due to an endorsement from a well known figure, Katy Manning. Also, Emoteag69, you need to sign your posts with three of "~". KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFF is a strong argument to make here; if you think those subjects are less notable than the one we are discussing here, it may be appropriate to check if they meet the relevant notability guidelines. I'll address the sourcing situation below. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to add that this anthology has a section featuring Iris Wildthyme, who's had a lot of appearances that make her more than just a "random character". KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The AP news publication is a paid-for press release, that's not independent as required by WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The Goshen News piece doesn't even mention this book. All the social media citations should be disregarded for notability purposes per WP:UGC. That leaves us with pretty much nothing reliable on the article subject; it falls way short of WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Google and ProQuest find nothing to change that. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tbf, the article does mention "a licensed Dr. Who spin-off", which is pretty obviously a reference to Cwej. Also, not to assume bad faith, but I'd like to note that Emoteag69 has only used their account to delete Who related pages (see their history in regards to Time's Champion) and they only had two or three edits before starting the discussion about deleting this page. I'm sure that this is in good faith, but it is kind of suspicious given the lack of edit history. KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It‘s not universally obvious that it‘s referring to Cwej, and more importantly, it‘s a far cry from WP:SIGCOV. If you have concerns about the nominator‘s editing behaviors, I would suggest addressing them on their talk page or opening an investigation at WP:SPI; I don‘t think an AfD is the right place for that. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, I have to admit, my fanboy obsession sometimes lets me forget not everyone shares my perception on somethings importance. There's another argument I'd like to put forward though in regards to WP:NBook and that's #5:

"The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study."

In this case, though, I'd like to refer to the "author" as Doctor Who the franchise and given how important said franchise is to the world of sci-fi and fantasy it seems like Cwej, even as a less well known part of it, fits the overall "important author/franchise". Because Cwej is officially licensed through all legal channels and it would be a gap in the record of the franchise itself if we deleted the page. KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can equate franchise and author in the way that you suggest. If we could, everything ever written within the franchise would be notable, and that seems quite far-fetched. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a fan production I might agree, but this isn't, it's an officially licensed anthology so I don't see how including it would open up the can of worms you're suggesting. It would be nothing out of the ordinary like a fanfilm or something like that, all it would be is another book in the DWU just like the many we already include. And it's not like this isn't notable; Chris Cwej is a full fledged companion and Iris Wildthyme has had a very notable publication history. KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're getting at, but none of these are the guideline-based arguments that are usually considered to be relevant at AfD. There's a pretty firm consensus on WP:GNG, with subject-specific alternatives like WP:NBOOK. Arguing that a topic is notable for reasons entirely separate from these criteria is usually unsuccessful. For example, notability is not inherited; a book about a character isn't notable just because the character itself is. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, we really need to hear from more editors in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Actualcpscm's reasoning. Widespread coverage in secondary sources isn't really there either. GuardianH (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The currently cited sources are a bunch of social media sites, announcements of release (WP:ROUTINE) and self-published materials. Searches online only returned fan sites and book stores. Does not seem to have passed WP:NBOOK. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:48, 30 August 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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Eppy

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

A single cap with the United States men's national soccer team. I was unable to find any in depth secondary sources, failing WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A US national player and member of the Olympic team, which are no small accomplishments. Obit mentions him as being a well-recognized name in STL and the St. Louis Sports Hall of fame calls him a "local legend." Inducted into the STL Soccer HOF. In-depth story here from USSoccer.com, though I'm not sure that'd count as independent. A SIGCOV story from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch here (p2). Plenty of mentions in Newspapers.com (e.g. 1 2 3). This feels like someone who should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree this does feel like an article which should be kept based on the public information we have available, even though football wasn't well covered in the USA at the time (St Louis was actually one of the exceptions.) I can't access any of the newspaper links, though. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Do they work now? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think so! Thank you for clipping them. SportingFlyer T·C 21:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC, BeanieFan has shown there is enough to pass the basic criteria, which also makes me feel the nominator hasn't bothered doing a WP:BEFORE. :/ Govvy (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to the nom this is the sort of article which needs a bit of sleuthing to WP:BEFORE since it's all pre-internet, but that also means more care needs to be taken. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always conduct a Before check and looked at ProQuest and Newspapers.com. Let'srun (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:GNG in multiple historical sources. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Its close, but I do think that there's enough here for notability per WP:NBASIC. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Dobert

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

No indication of notability except for dying in a plane crash, which would be WP:BIO1E. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, United States of America, and Maryland. UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding evidence of notability in source search, and to my knowledge we have no SNGs that cover non-elected government officials. If the only thing she was notable for was her death in the 1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash, her name listed there as a victim (as it is) should suffice. ASUKITE 15:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The dying in a plane crash has coverage and there is A bill For the relief of the estate of Gail E. Dobert. But I'm not finding anything else in my search. The bill is interesting, but I'm not sure it's notable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Deputy director for the Office of Business Liaison" is not a position that confers "inherent" notability under WP:NPOL, but this is not referenced to anything like the volume of reliable source coverage it would take to get her over WP:GNG for it: there's one obituary about her, which is fine but not in and of itself enough, and otherwise this is based entirely on glancing namechecks of her existence in the air crash coverage and primary sources, which are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 3 August 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Woll Jr.

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

Is a case of WP:BLP1E for his failed judicial nomination. I propose redirecting this article to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies, which already lists the subject. Let'srun (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that we create a separate article collecting all unsuccessful judicial nominees, so that we can preserve mere information on their circumstances. BD2412 T 17:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think renaming those judicial appointment controversies articles (which has been proposed at Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies) and perhaps considering a format change or merge of sorts makes the most sense. Let'srun (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a nomination that merely expired constitutes an appointment controversy, which generally arises where there is some objection to the appointment, or some procedural interference with an unobjectionable appointment. Perhaps a rescoping of those articles can accommodate this information, however. BD2412 T 17:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the paragraph about Woll Jr. on that article though, it appears that there is more to the story than what is noted here. There was objection from the 2 New York senators. Let'srun (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to BD2412's proposed article. Independently of BLP1E, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are not satisfied by the available sources, including those in the article as well as those I could find in my own searches. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:BD2412, has that possible Merge target article been created?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, I started to create a merge article, but then noticed that these subjects are already sufficiently covered in Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies, so I have been redirecting the titles to the appropriate sections of that article. BD2412 T 17:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, then where would you suggest this be redirected to? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and not merge for WP:BLP1E and failing WP:GNG. Woll's nomination failed due to what I read as routine political opposition, rather than a "controversy". So I'm not sure Woll would even qualify for redirect to the judicial nomination controversy article. Longhornsg (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a criterion for inclusion in other articles, so BLP1E and GNG don‘t apply in this way; the subject doesn‘t need to fulfill notability guidelines to be included in a broader article. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 07:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no merge When such an article is created, if the creating editor wishes to also create a redirect from David C. Woll Jr., they should feel free to do so. Right now, delete is the appropriate action, due to failing WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 18:11, 17 August 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 Bernard Baars. ✗plicit 00:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Consciousness Review

AfDs for this article:

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

This very old website appears to fail WP:GNG. Despite the name and the association of several prominent scientists with it, it is not an academic journal. I could not find any secondary coverage of the website from a web search or Google Scholar. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Psychology, and Internet. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A 2018 book [62] describes it as apparently defunct. That is about when the Wayback Machine stopped capturing it; their most recent image is from that August [63], and every post there is already years old. So far, I'm not finding evidence that an article is warranted here, though I also imagine that in this case a redirect wouldn't hurt, if there were a suitable target. (Perhaps Bernard Baars, the founding editor?) XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sourcing found, defunct website. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few mentions in Gscholar, confirming existence but nothing for GNG. [64] Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bernard Baars, which already mentions the Review on his article as the founding editor. Let'srun (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in-depth coverage, not even brief coverage. Not notable

FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:31, 3 August 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 — nomination withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Kotlarsky

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

Subject appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. The only mentions of them I could find online were for their own publications, and non-independent bios from, for example, the institutions they have worked at. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, and New Zealand. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A pass of WP:Prof on GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Question: full professor - aren't those usually notable? Also, I understand that the University of Auckland is the top-ranked university in NZ.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full professors are not notable for holding that academic rank (see WP:Prof), but this one is notable for other reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Full professors in New Zealand are considered notable. Schwede 66 11:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PROF-C1 on citations. --Mvqr (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recluse myself as creator due to being topic banned from BLPs. 19:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 but not #C5. Full professors at good research universities are often notable on other grounds (as is the case here) but are not automatically notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My understanding is that in Australia and New Zealand 'professor' is equivalent to distinguished professors in other countries, meaning that #C5 is met; "an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". (Although having said that, I see on the Academic ranks (Australia and New Zealand) page this point is flagged as dubious...) The University of Auckland promotion guidelines are that a professorial appointment is only available "where an academic staff member has demonstrated professional and academic eminence at an international level". In any event, though, she would meet #C1 criteria as she appears to be widely cited. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If anyone has paid access to The Economist, could citation 3 in this article be verified? Without that source, the article violates WP:PRIMARY number 5. Willing to withdraw this nomination once this concern is addressed, as the consensus is leaning quite convincingly to "keep". —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the Economist article and edited the paragraph here to reflect the specifics of what it says. XOR'easter (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, XOR'easter. I think that adresses my concern. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per answers to my question above.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject seems to meet WP:PROF#C1. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn per comments and answer to my question above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:07, 8 August 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 14:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Holy Trinity Church, Benaulim incident

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

See WP:NOTNEWS. The article provides nothing of consequence to indicate that this 'incident' meets Wikipedia notability criteria. Disputes between parishoners and clergy (or equivalents in other faiths) get reported in local newspapers all the time, and very few are of enduring significance, liable to attract the ongoing coverage needed to justify a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, when one discounts the repetition, the extensive off-topic padding, and the editorialising (see e.g. the 'Media opinion' section in particular), the article is singularly uninformative as to what exactly this 'dispute' was actually about. There are obvious WP:BLP concerns involved, e.g. in naming individuals charged with minor criminal offences but not convicted, along with the broader issue of claiming 'controversy' over individuals without providing sufficient evidence of any long-term continuity in coverage to justify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After some consideration, I have now removed the 'Media opinion' section commented on above from the article - regardless of the outcome of this AfD, such blatant editorialising doesn't remotely belong in article space. I have also removed a section entitled 'Media coverage' which entirely lacked any source actually discussing such coverage, and appears to serve no purpose beyond making the incident look more significant than it is -violating WP:NPOV along with other policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How much incidents relating between parishioners and the parish priest which has led to a resignation have been reported, especially in this small state of Goa with significant amount of Christians? I find this subject pass the notability criteria mainly because it's not a an "average" dispute, which possibly you're talking about. The priest has lost his position in the church and possibly won't every be assigned in any church. Not to forget Fr Rodrigues has been mentioned several times in local news publications. Apart this, its not the first the parishioners of Benaulim church or particularly this church has been in news. There are reports as early as early 2000s, see [65] involving the priest in charge. The article is singularly uninformative as to what exactly this 'dispute' was actually about, see second paragraph of the lead. it is mentioned that Parishioners accused the priest of making administrative decisions without consulting them, and of ignoring their opinions and concerns about the practices and services in the church. The situation reached a breaking point when some parishioners, who were allegedly close to the priest, filed police complaints against certain individuals. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 19:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An unrelated incident involving another priest 22 years ago does absolutely nothing to increase the notability of this incident. As for the rest, I stand by what I wrote: the article doesn't tell us what it is the dispute was even about, in any real detail. And no, the lack of coverage for other events doesn't bestow notability on this one, either. WP:N doesn't work like that. Not even remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the article article doesn't tell us what it is the dispute was even about? Not to forget that I was still working on the article, like I said the above statement was from The Times of India in the English language. You can also see a better detailed information about the matter on two news publications, The Prudent Media [66] and Dainik Gomantak [67]. Do note that the above two news links are mostly in the Konkani language and a Non-Konkani editor will find it difficult to comprehend what's even going on. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 20:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be easier to comprehend what was going on if you had made some effort to tell us. What 'administrative decisions' were the parishioners upset about? Which 'opinions' of theirs do they claim were being ignored? What was it about the 'practices and services in the church' that they took issue with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would had be pleased to comprehend the issue only if I had got more time then taking this to the AFD. Leaving that aside, I've made a breakdown about the Dainik Gomantak video source, I don't think this will answer all your questions but to summarise what the concerned person told in the video was; The letter was issued because the parishioners did not want Fr. Rodrigues since they did not understand him. The things he preached were not done properly, the Bible readings were not read properly, and the practices and services (mass liturgy, etc) of the church were not conducted properly. In addition, there were other issues that the parishioners wrote down to the Bishop. The concerned parishioner further claimed that his actions were tarnishing the Christian religion, which is why the parishioners of Benaulim do not visit their own parish church, but instead go to neighboring churches to attend their services. According to Prudent Media's livestream, it was difficult to interpret what the locals were saying due to the sheer number of people present. Towards the end of the video, all that could be understood was that they alleged the parish priest had embezzled funds from the church, (mainly donations, etc.) and called him names. Also do note that most of the issues or answers to your questions are undisclosed by the government officials, locals or journalists involved. I can provide more details from Twitter but they aren't written down by experts rather individual persons, hence they're not reliable and won't provide proper weightage to this discussion. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 03:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, India, and Goa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and perhaps TOOSOON as well. If people are still talking about this in a year maybe it could be made into a shortened, simplified article, so I would be ok with draftifying it as a second option. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What according to WP:NOTNEWS you disagree of? WP:TOOSOON usually points out issues with "independent reliable sources". Check the article again, it has sources from different media publications from Goa. Also see my reply above to AndyTheGrump, I've mentioned The Prudent Media and Dainik Gomantak but you'll have to learn a different language for that unless you're a Goan. Maybe it could be made into a shortened, simplified article what do you mean shortened article? When the article can be as lengthy as this one, since I've been WP:BOLD about it. People were already talking about it in June, you can see Tweets, Facebook posts and even YouTube videos see [68] [69] [70]

[71] there's also another public opinion in The Navhind Times see [72]. Yet the Cardinal had also issued this statement after witnessing the incident at Benaulim, see here [73] which gives an insight on how much efforts have been made to hush up the issues that happened at a village, which is also tourist destination. I believe we should be WP:BOLD about it and let the people know and educate about things happening in the state of Goa. I haven't added YouTube videos to references in the article since they're not from news publications. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AndyTheGrump and WP:NOTNEWS as it provides nothing of consequence to indicate notability and it does not have Lasting impact.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How it doesn't have a lasting effect? Per WP:LASTING, Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. read the article title from The Goan Everyday which says Action at Benaulim Church sets a horrible precedent. see [74] To provide a general overview to you, As far as I've known and looked up on the internet, the state of Goa has never had a protest with hundreds of parishioners demanding action against a priest which resulted in his resignation from the church, the demand was first requested over months ago. This can be a possibile catalyst to unknown events in the forthcoming years the state has to witness. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 19:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL "Wikipedia does not predict the future". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready to take my statment back, but still doesn't tackle the fact that it passes WP:LASTING. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 19:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can you possibly assert that? The events only happened a couple of months ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't claimed that an Action at Benaulim Church has a horrible precedent. There's an article written about it, maybe you could go through it. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 19:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's an editorial. Speculation about things that might happen. If and when they do, and if and when they get significant coverage, we can write an article about them. Until then, we aren't obliged to report what anonymous journalists see in their crystal balls. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be more careful with the word "speculation". They have referred the Benaulim incident a couple of times, quote The Benaulim incident is a grim reminder that the 'golden phase of silence' may end sooner, and protests could be the way forward, even at churches. This gives us an insight on how much serious this incident is, I'm not sure whether the editors who have supported for delete in this AFD have even gone through references? The journalist has also put forth related incidents yet the Benaulim incident stands out, like the article title is suggested. The topic has already been received significant coverage from the local media publications (excluding those that are written and difficult to find in Devnagari). It has also involved notable persons like the Cardinal and Archdiocese of Goa and Daman Filipe Neri Ferrão as well. "We can write an article about them", I can vouch you that no one will come forward and write on topic such as these. Wikiprojects Goa itself has less participants, I don't expect anyone doing this. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 22:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to be careful about the word 'speculation', since I was using it to describe an anonymous editorial you linked which was doing exactly that. Anyway, beyond suggesting you add WP:NOTINHERITED to the things you need to read up on, I think we are probably done here. I have expressed my opinion (based on many years as a Wikipedia contributor and participant in deletion discussions) on the notability of this 'incident'. You have expressed yours. We should probably leave the discussion to other contributors. Appropriate projects have been notified, and I'm sure there will be further input. This isn't an argument between the two of us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that this argument is definitely not between us. It's only that I've worked on this article almost a week, spending hours and now it has come to this. Not that I didn't expect it, but I knew atleast some editor will definitely have a problem. I don't agree with the WP:NOTINHERITED part, but I'm definitely an Inclusionist. I'll leave this to the other contributors, but to your another claim of "anonymous editor", I wish you had done more digging. The editor of The Goan Everyday, is Joel Afonso from Goa News Network (GNN) see here [75]. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 05:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a group of parishioners angrily demanding their priest resign is about as WP:NOTNEWS as it gets. If it were a significant church then perhaps this incident could be a short blurb in the church's article, but it isn't. The incident doesn't seem to have even garnered much coverage in the local media. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ivanvector. This would be WP:UNDUE as even a sentence at Benaulim, and there is no more local article with which it could be considered for a merge. I also think the mention is rather undue at the only place it's linked from, Timeline of Goan history (although it's not the only bit of trivia there). Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even as an inclusionist, I see nothing of value or notability here. It fails pretty much every test: Not news, currently non-notable, too soon to tell if there will ever be notability, a '4' on event criteria, lacking significant coverage, lacking persistent coverage, lacking coverage outside the area. I feel for the editor who invested so much time here, but it's just not a Wikipedia article. It's vaguely interesting, but entirely local. If it turns out to have lasting consequences (I don't see how, but my precognition is acting up), we can recreate the article in a decade or so. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:09, 7 August 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 14:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paruchuri

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

No sources for this Sharkslayer87 (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. A Google search doesn't find sources either. Article itself is also an orphan. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Four years and no sources; nothing here to save. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:49, 6 August 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 Nick Fury#Ultimate Marvel. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fury (Ultimate Marvel character)

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

The character Nick Fury is surely notable; but this particular alternative version of Nick Fury does not seem to be. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nick Fury#Ultimate Marvel, the WP:SS parent. In general, I believe it's better to cover multiple versions of one character in one article. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nick Fury#Ultimate Marvel - I'd say the fact that the Ultimate Marvel depiction of Fury has become the most widely used look for the character due to it being the basis of the MCU version gives it a tad more notability than most "alternate" versions of characters, but I agree that it would be better covered as part of the main Nick Fury article. Rorshacma (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable version of the character, easily passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point to some of the sources that help this version of the character pass GNG? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do better than asserting WP:ITSNOTABLE _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nick Fury#Ultimate Marvel. The character itself is not notable, but some information written in the article could be covered in the Nick Fury article. Redjedi23 (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @StarTrekker: or merge with Nick Fury#Ultimate Marvel in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The character doesn't have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. There is a good WP:ATD that would improve readability and avoid any WP:SIGCOV problems. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The proliferation of Marvel character variants is puzzling to me, and likely, 99% of readers who are non die hard fans. Nick Fury is notable and deserves a page on Wikipedia. One page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 5 August 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 procedural close‎. The nominator is not allowed to participate in deletion discussions relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan as a non-EC editor per WP:GS/AA. I have separately, further blocked them as an arbitration enforcement measure for repeated violations of this rule. I did, however, look into their specific claims regarding this article's sourcing to establish whether the nomination is tendentious in toto or just de jure: while I did not look long enough to verify that GNG was met, I was able to quickly find coverage of the battle on Google Scholar in Turkish ^[1]and in French ([76]), suggesting a lack of proper WP:BEFORE and a basis for indefinite banning from AA. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Halidzor

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

Hello, I propose to delete this article and I give you my reasons, first I can't find any serious work on the "battle of halizdor" HERE, AND HERE, suddenly there are only Armenian sources, and especially the figure of 70,000 Ottomans, which is completely misused and without proving, the last source is not accessible and above all only sources from Armenian schools with domains ending with ".AM ", I propose to delete this article because it is Armenian propaganda. Movaigonel (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Armenia. — Karnataka ^talk 12:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bozkuş, Yıldız Deveci. "Ermeni tarih ders kitaplarında Türk imgesi." Yeni Türkiye 60 (2014): 2014. (Accessible as PDF from Google Scholar)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moxila A. Upadhyaya

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

While judges holding national office are presumed to be notable (WP:POLITICIAN), I am not sure that the same presumption can be taken to extend to United States magistrate judges, whose authority is much less than that of United States federal judges and whose duties are mainly administrative. In any case, the presumption, if it applies, is rebutted: I find no reliable independent sources covering Upadhyaya in any detail (WP:N). Google provides many hits, but they are passing mentions in which is reported that she e.g. administered the arraignment of this or that person. And the current minimal content is entirely a WP:BIO1E matter, reflecting her future (peripheral) involvement in the most recent indictment of Donald Trump. She is not the actual judge who will preside over his trial, and therefore future coverage of her and her decisions can be expected to as minimal as anything involving Trump can be. Sandstein 11:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Politics, and United States of America. Sandstein 11:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is the first former president to face federal criminal charges, any judges involved in the process are ipso facto notable, administratively or otherwise. Furthermore, the future is unwritten. Today is August 2; the arraignment is tomorrow. Give it a day. kencf0618 (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ANY Judge involved in the possible conviction of Trump will be considered noteworthy to future historians. DO NOT DELETE. Deadvoodoo (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The relevant notability criteria is here (for US judges). The individual is not de facto notable, but could still be notable. I'm pretty WP:MEH on keep vs. delete. Maybe their role in the Trump stuff is notable, maybe it's WP:TOOSOON. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom is correct that magistrate judges are not automatically notable, even if they are involved in a high-profile case. She is handling some procedural components before the district judge takes over, and unless there are independent sources about Upadhyaya herself, there is no basis for notability. A claim of "ipso facto notable" is false and has no basis in our guidelines. Reywas92^Talk 13:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Gujarat, and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recent independent and reliable coverage is limited, e.g. "Trump will make his first court appearance on Thursday before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya. Such judges handle initial matters in federal cases." (ABC News); "NBC News reports that Trump will travel to Washington, D.C., on Thursday to be arraigned in U.S. District Court before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya." (New York); "Trump won’t be placed under arrest, according to Wade. In accepting the indictment Tuesday, US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya issued a summons for his appearance, not an arrest warrant." (Guardian, quoting Bloomberg). This seems to be "routine news coverage of announcements" that "is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject" according to WP:NOTNEWS. Similarly, other coverage includes e.g. anticipated work, i.e. hearing oral arguments, and submitting a report and recommendations to a federal district court judge for review (Bloomberg, Jan. 2023); delaying an arraignment and appointing a federal public defender (Reuters, Jan. 2023); granting a motion to delay a settlement conference (Bloomberg, Jun. 2023). She works on high-profile cases, but sources do not seem to offer secondary analysis or evaluation of her role to help support notability according to WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. The Wikiproject United States courts and judges WP:USJUDGE guidance says "Such judges are not inherently notable", but if an WP:NPOL presumption of notability exists for a magistrate judge, this seems rebutted here by a lack of sustained coverage from independent, reliable, and secondary sources. There are also nonindependent biographical materials from a former employer, e.g. [77], [78], [79], and a Bloomberg database profile, but these do not help support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Trump (or Beyonce or Zuckerberg) interacts with someone in an administrative capacity does not mean that they are notable. Think Clerk of the Court, bailiff who serves legal notices, policeman who escorts (and the command chains above them) Similarly tax auditors, notaries, etc, and in a health setting: nurses and non-lead doctors.

Apart from anything else, such people make no choice to be in the limelight and deserve not to be dragged into it, especially with the chance of fans of the famous person feeling aggrieved and seeking to harm them. Zsalya (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has thousands of biographies of people who make no choice to be in the lime light. That is how encyclopedias tend to be written. CT55555(talk) 02:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a shameful and racist attack on the Honorable Ms. Upadhyaya. If she was not born in India this would not even be a discussion right now. She is clearly notable as her biography at the District Court says and all of these efforts to berate her and her character will fail. 2A01:CB10:9C1:B00:7D95:B89:5C5:79CF (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your precious source. Shame for assuming that just because she is from India she is not notable!

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/magistrate-judge-moxila-upadhyaya-trumps-jan-6-case/story?id=101990791 2A01:CB10:9C1:B00:7D95:B89:5C5:79CF (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Racism is a serious accusation. I don't see any racist attacks here. Please specifically identify what racism you see here. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Racism and prejudice are not always direct and point blank. Here the people are clever and do not directly mention Ms. Upadhyaya's place of birth but it is clear that they want her article deleted because of this and would not do the same for someone else 2A01:CB10:9C1:B00:1979:9196:7C33:303A (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You state that the motives are clear but you've not offered any evidence to demonstrate that. Notability on Wikipedia is determined by whether there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and the nomination focuses on exactly whether that test is met, as it would with any other nomination on the grounds of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to offer direct evidence of this, or withdraw the claim. You divining a meaning is not evidence. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one in this discussion has suggested her birthplace makes her not notable. We examine available sources according the notability guideline. The ABC News source noted above cites her US District Court biography, and does not appear to add secondary support for notability. The NYT has similar coverage Who is the judge handling Trump’s initial court appearance?, noting "Judge Upadhyaya was appointed last year, and has handled proceedings for several Jan. 6 defendants", as well as a one-sentence summary of her past legal career; what a former employer says about her; her US District Court biography; and briefly noting political donations documented by OpenSecrets.
Another recent source (AP News) mentions "The arraignment will be handled before U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadyaha, who joined the bench last year"; the Guardian says "Thursday's hearing in the courthouse [...] was expected to be overseen by US magistrate judge Moxila Upadhyaya. Magistrate judges typically handle the more routine or procedural aspects of court cases, such as arraignments". She is not reported to have a substantial role in this Trump prosecution or other high-profile cases; recent coverage based on a brief burst of attention due to her proximity to this recent high-profile case therefore does not seem to offer substantial support for notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The valid discussion is of bias as being statistical, not individual: m:Community Insights/Community Insights 2023 Report#Race and Ethnicity in the US and UK. While "Asian or Asian American" US active Wikipedians are slightly overrepresented compared to their fraction of their population, "Asian or Asian British" UK active Wikipedians are underrepresented by a factor of two [here I'm ignoring uncertainties; if the sample size is the typical 1000 or so, then these "over-" and "under-" differences are statistically negligible (random effects only)]. See also racial bias on Wikipedia.
Of course, the IP editor alleging a "shameful and racist attack" is unhelpful, and verging on a personal attack, since attack is an allegation of negative intent, and shameful tends to imply intent too. Statistically racist behaviour as part of a group does not imply intent. Boud (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Questions of how to handle the issue of statistically significant biases in Wikipedia are non-trivial; claiming deliberate intent is not acceptable (WP:AGF), except in the rare cases where that actually happens (not this case); claiming that the statistical biases are absent would be ignoring the RS'd evidence; trying to claim bias in an individual case doesn't make sense statistically. In any case, in this particular case there are plenty of sources over nearly two decades (see below). Boud (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this helpful insight. I might have been carried away with my words because racism (whether structural or intentional) really disheartens me and makes me want to speak out. I very much do hope that there was no actual negative intent 2A01:CB10:9C1:B00:AD3F:66A0:5052:8918 (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trump comes in contact with many people. That fact alone does not make them "notable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizrahim (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed "that fact alone" does not make her notable. But the significant coverage in reliable sources does. CT55555(talk) 02:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have sympathy for the argument to delete and I assume it was accurate when written, but the lack of significant coverage is no longer true, based on searches I did today. See:

Given the coverage is all recent, some might wonder if her notability for one event should preclude her, so also noting lots of brief mentions of her lawyering and judging, examples include:

Brief mention in 2019: https://georgetowner.com/articles/2019/02/04/whatever-happened-whole-foods/
Brief mention in 2023: https://www.reuters.com/legal/lockerbie-bombing-suspect-be-arraigned-us-federal-court-2023-01-25/
Historical society profile here: https://dcchs.org/sb_pdf/biographical-sketch-of-moxila-upadhyaya/

I think it is also important that she played a role in a historically significant event (today) so she is someone that encyclopedia readers may want to read about. Noting ~3,800 page views today, which appears to support that. Overall the presence of this article is a net positive to the encyclopedia. CT55555(talk) 02:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last source listed is not a historical society profile, it is the pdf in my first comment above - a biography produced by a former employer, so not independent. In my second comment above, I discussed the first and third sources listed - ABC News "Who is Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya in Trump's Jan. 6 case?" and the NYT "Who is the judge handling Trump’s initial court appearance?", and how they are not sigcov, due to a lack of independent and secondary content. The Hindu coverage repeats similar information and says "according to her resume" when discussing her work at Venable. The Reuters coverage of her delaying an arraignment and appointing a federal public defender is discussed in my first comment (WP:NOTNEWS, lack of secondary analysis or evaluation). The mention in The Georgetowner ("a free bi-weekly tabloid-style newspaper") of something she wrote as an attorney on behalf of a client also seems to be routine coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:NOTNEWS precludes these sources because I don't think these profiles are "routine announcements", I think they are bona fide news articles and I think they have been written independently of the subject of the article. Yes, I see now that the historical society words are written by an ex employer, but it seems likely that the historical society made the decision that she was notable enough to publish it ("The Society is a tax exempt organization that operates independently from the courts"), so I think it counts for something (either way, it's not a core pillar of my keep !vote). CT55555(talk) 03:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the brief mentions of her work over the past year as a magistrate judge is routine/NOTNEWS coverage - her work includes high-profile cases, but her role is limited, so it is not unexpected that coverage is limited. The recent profiles (generated because of a very high-profile arraignment) repeat a similar biographical overview that appears on her US District Court biography and do not seem to be multiple sources for WP:GNG - fn4 notes It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Even if the apparent recycling of her employer profiles could serve as one source, there still does not appear to be substantial support for WP:BASIC notability from other sources, including the Legal Times blog noted below, or awards from her employer or co-counsel. Beccaynr (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:GNG as per the references given by CT55555. Three profiles in US and international media for the 3 August Trump appearance: The Hindu mentions the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project awarded Judge Upadhyaya its Defender of Innocence Award in 2009 and Venable named her Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year in 2006; 2019 brief mention in Whole Foods vs Wical, brief mention 2023 Reuters, profile by Historical Society of the D.C. Circuit. Notable in 2008 as one of three lawyers who freed a man who had spent 20 years in prison for murder in a wrongful conviction. Boud (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a lot of news coverage now. If the judge doesn't stay notable, the article can be deleted then.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't temporary, Mike Selinker. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she seems to have passed the WP:GNG threshold (possibly since this AfD nomination was made). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Speaking as a decided Eventualist & Inclusionist (and the curator of this article), inasmuch as Judge Upadhyaya has set the terms of bail for Trump, she has authority over Trump. WP: Crystal Ball doesn't pertain; those are the facts of the matter. (P.S. I was mistaken; basically she set bail, and that was the end of her job.) kencf0618 (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has become a historical figure by arraigning the former President.Potsdamergänzer (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A month ago, there were not enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Today, however, there are. She's notable enough now. --Jayron 32 13:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CT55555 and Boud. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.Classicfilms (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are ~~three~~ keep !votes over at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Moxila A. Upadhyaya CT55555(talk) 05:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequate sources exist for GNG, and are cited in the article now. At the time its nomination, the article might have been a good candidate for deletion, but many of the RSs cited that meet GNG were published after it was nominated (since 2 August). If the article were nominated today, I surmise it would be a speedy keep.-Ich (talk) 10:46, 9 August 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 12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Noje

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Simply being a fighter pilot is not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 12:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no sigcov of the subject and appears to fail BASIC / GNG. --Donaldherald (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:03, 8 August 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 12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Agent Club

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

To quote my removed PROD:

No apparent signs of notability. Rotten Tomatoes lists two reviews, but one (archived) is actually for The Secret Agent (1996 film) and the other I can find no trace of online and wouldn't know if the source is reliable anyway. Found nothing else of value, and I wouldn't even be sure it was keepable if it had those reviews.

That PROD was removed without comment, but sources were added so that's fine. The problem is that three of them are just databases (Mubi, FilmDienst, TV Guide), one is WhatCulture which "is considered generally unreliable", and one is Hulk Hogan's own book which does not give notability to a movie he starred in. I can't view the excerpts from that Orpheus Pub review to garner an opinion of it as a source, but even if it's reliable, it's the only one so far, and I didn't find anything else earlier as I said so I still don't see notability here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 12:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Filmdienst quotes the Lexikon des internationalen Films, which is very reliable. Even if one takes the nominator's views into consideration, the coverage seems sufficient to attest notability.

But fair enough, one can also add this review, at least to make sure it meets the requirements for notability of films. And this, this, this, this, etc.

For what it's worth, the film was internationally distributed and various sources exist when looking up with Spanish/Portuguese/French titles...

(Note- The assertion that That PROD was removed without comment is not true. I removed the Prod and I did add a comment both in the Old prod template on the talk page "Added sources, expanded, apparently notable" and in my edit summary "++, removed Prod by User:QuietHere", which is short but seems very clear and informs the nominator of the DeproD. Please check and amend your comment if you don't mind.)

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "removed the PROD" without saying why is removing it without comment. Fair, you did then add a reason to the template on the talk page which I didn't see, and also that part doesn't matter because your reasoning was clear without being stated.

As for the sources you've linked, let's see. The Movie Scene is written by one person and makes no mention of editorial oversight so that likely gets struck down as unreliable/non-expert unless Webb is secretly some acclaimed film critic who I've just never heard of. Wealth of Geeks is a listicle and I've seen enough of those rejected to have my doubts, especially when there's only a few sentences on the movie and they're written by someone who appears to only write listicles. Cinema.de has a rating but no prose attached and is otherwise just a database page, not hot on that. Stinker Madness is a blog for someone's podcast which appears to also lacks editorial oversight and would be struck. And Kino.de suggests at the bottom of the page that the review there is one of what could be more, implying that review is a user submission, thus failing USERG. See how the recent Haunted Mansion lists 13 reviews and an average rating of them.

In short, I don't think any of those pages are reliable, and my mind has not been changed. Since you say you found more in other languages, please link them here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Saying "removed the PROD" without saying why is removing it without comment. No, I don't think it is the same. And in good faith if you quote it, you should quote my edit summary completely: "++, removed ProD by XXX", which obviously means I expanded the page or added various things to it, which clearly explains why I removed the tag (not to mention the size of the edit and the TP template). I am therefore forced to repeat that your opening assertion is simply not true. If it does not matter and was clear without being stated, why mention it at all? Let's forget it, as you clearly do not wish to amend that erroneous statement.

=========

Other reviews:

http://www.the-unknown-movies.com/unknownmovies/reviews/rev126.html

https://theschlockpit.com/2021/03/12/the-secret-agent-club-1996/ (this is hosted by Wordpress and is technically a blog)

Various other lists include the film with a brief assessment (ScreenRant, Complex).

There was apparently a review in Time Out at the time of the release but I can't access it and will not try. If anyone has time...

----------

I mentioned sources in other languages above "fwiw" to attest international distribution and attest the titles when they differ a lot from the original, but fair enough here's one review in French, for example:

https://www.senscritique.com/film/agent_double/critique/264611271

I'll let other users judge the quality and number of sources presented here, above and on the page, and will make no further comment in this discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Merrill, Paul (2000-10-01). "The Secret Agent Club". Empire. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
  The review notes: "On a budget that would barely cover one of Arnie' cigars, that other body builder-cum-film star Hulk Hogan essentially remakes True Lies, this time with Jamie Lee Curtis replaced by the streetwise antics of a bunch of kids. ... With a little less overacting from the supporting cast, and a touch more imagination, this could have been lowbrow fun. As it is, it's bland, only occasionally entertaining, nonsense."
2. Felperin, Leslie (1996-09-01). "The Secret Agent Club". Sight and Sound. Vol. 6, no. 9. pp. 53–54. ProQuest 1305512516.
  The article notes: "The biggest danger the film flirts with is of degenerating into a out-and-out camp farce, which might have generated a bigger audience beyond kids and those who enjoy watching Plan 9 From Outer Space all the way through. Director John Murlowski, a former music video director whose feature credits include Amityville: The New Generation and Automatic, only just avoids going down this road, perhaps to his credit. His evident ability to maintain conviction in this possibly career-wrecking venture suggests that he must have learnt a thing or two in his early days making public service announcements for the Suicide Prevention Center (a detail conveyed in the film's press notes). However, with its ridiculous collection of mugging baddies (foremost offender being the sadly fallen Lesley-Anne Down as the vampish Eve), cheesy action sequences, and bad special effects, The Secret Agent Club is likely only to save the lives of depressives with a taste for borderline kitsch and fanatical Hulk Hogan fans."
3. "The Secret Agent Club Reviews". TV Guide. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
  The review notes: "Although he has played a campy villain in the ring and in ROCKY III (1982), wrestling star Terry "Hulk" Hogan has a more upstanding role in this low-grade, family action-comedy. ... After a 007-style entrance, Hogan, rather suprisingly, gets written out of most of the plot, leaving a multicultural band of bland children to carry on slapstick action heroics. Special effects and stunts look acceptable granted the low budget, although mistaking the awesome disintegrator handgun for a chintzy toy is an error any observer could make."
4. Myers, Randy (1997-08-29). "Best Family Fare Comes Home". Contra Costa Times. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
  The review notes: ""THE SECRET AGENT CLUB": Lethal. When a studio trumpets the fact that a film is a cross between "Home Alone" and "True Lies," you gotta wonder: What brand of glue did the studio execs start sniffing? This time, first impressions are as accurate as the Weekly World News. Yes, "The Secret Agent Club" is junk. But kids need B movies just like their parents. ... Remember how much you liked the original "Batman" series when you were a kid? Your children will experience the same feeling with "Club.""
5. Millar, John (1996-08-15). "Just a basic stinker from Sharon - It's hard to care whether La Stone gets away with murder or not". Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
  The article notes: "Hulk Hogan flexes his muscles for another bid for box office glory ... only to finish up flat on his backside. In The Secret Agent Club (PG) the big guy stars in a feeble fourth division version of True Lies. Where Arnie had a budget, sock-it-to-them action and wisecracking script, however, Hulk's has very little at all to commend it. In this bit of froth for the teenies, the former wrestler's cover is that he runs a toy shop. The reality is that he's a super-duper agent whose speciality is saving the world from power- mad baddies like Lesley-Anne Down. And whatever did happen to her career? This certainly won't help it along."
6. Perry, George (1996-08-18). "The rest of the week's films - Cinema". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
  The review notes: "John Murlowski's dumb, noisy, explosive adventure is a sort of juvenile version of Schwarzenegger's True Lies, and Leslie-Anne Down, as the sexy English villainess, delivers her lines with pantomime-like flourishes, suggesting that she has got the measure of the material. Hulk, with his indestructible jaw and weird hairline, is hardly a model of Bondian suaveness and, sadly, spends far too long doing nothing more than lying flat on his back resisting various mind tortures, when he should really be out there in the action."
7. "Jock that shocks - Private Parts Ch4, 10.00pm - 12.05am". Daily Record. 2000-03-18. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
  The review notes: "HULK HOGAN as secret agent relying on his young son's help in True Lies slapstick for the tiny-tots set. It went direct to video in the United States, propelled by Jan Hammer's old-fashioned synthesizer score. The script is so full of inane puns it must have arrived at Hogan's house covered in Schwarzenegger's thumbprints. With Lesley-Anne Down"
8. Simon Rose articles:
  1. Rose, Simon (1996-08-22). "Hogan's zeroes". Daily Mirror. ProQuest 337918536. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
    The review notes: " The Secret Agent Club ... It's utter drivel, but the kids it's aimed at will probably like its Home Alone-style. "
  2. Rose, Simon (1996-12-05). "Scope for a few laughs". Daily Mirror. ProQuest 337870069. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.
    The review notes: "Captured by evil arms dealer Lesley-Anne Down, his son and his mates set out to rescue him. It's utter drivel, cheaply and shoddily made. But while adults will find it torture, the single-digit-aged kids it's aimed at will probably relish the Home Alone-style antics."
  3. S, T (1996-08-30). "Hogan's not as strong in the acting stakes". Sutton Coldfield Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05 – via Newspapers.com.
    The review notes: "Villains are made to look doubly stupid, coupled with the non-existent thrills of and a total lack of finesse or restraint, 'The Secret Agents Club' is a movie full of half-baked comedy ideas that just do not work - even at juvenile level. It is also sad to see 70's star Lesley-Anne Down reduced to playing a 'vamp' villain in the campy mode of Joan Collins."
9. Davies, Mike (1996-08-23). "Murder and mirth on the supper menu". Birmingham Post. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Coming up slow, but disappearing fast, is kids' movie The Secret Agent Club. the non-awaited big screen return of former wrestler Hulk Hogan, a man who makes Wolf from Gladiators look like a RADA honours graduate. ... On a budget that makes Blakes 7 look extravagant, the only thing in its favour is that Hogan spends most of the film strapped to a table. The difference between that and his acting in other in other more animated scenes is minimal."
10. Patterson, Mark (1996-08-23). "Hulking effort is lacking". Nottingham Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Home Alone was an excellent example of this. The Secret Agent Club isn't, basically because the bits that make grown-ups giggle aren't in the script. No naughty double-entendre here, no sir. ... Another problem is that there isn't enough action. Indeed, the whole affair has a somewhat drab, cheap, downmarket feel to it. The kids may not notice - parents will."
11. "Leslie is hamming it up with the Hulk". Bristol Evening Post . 1996-08-16. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "If you've seen the movie True Lies with Arnold Schwarzenegger, then The Secret Agent Club is the same plot but without the thrills. The laser gun looks like something you could pick up at Toys R Us and every expense appears to have been spared presumably to pay Hogan. With a larger budget and a little more thought, The Secret Agent Club could have been an entertaining family film. Instead, it barely comes up to scratch with just a few entertaining moments and a lot of bland nonsense in between."
12. Fane-Saunders, Kilmeny, ed. (2000). "The Secret Agent Club". Radio Times Guide to Films. London: BBC Worldwide. p. 1252. ISBN 0-563-53710-8. Retrieved 2023-08-05 – via Google Books.
  The review notes: "Hulk Hogan briefly becomes charming as his secret agent character returns to his civilian disguise as a nerdy single father. Then he's kidnapped by arms dealers, and spends most of the movie under sedation. His young son gets his friends to help track down and spring his father, dodging bullets and killers while having a jolly good time. Reprehensible in its attitude towards violence while children are present, this also contains blatant racist stereotypes. It's a pity the audience couldn't be as unconscious as Hogan was throughout this travesty."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Secret Agent Club to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard such as Empire magazine, Sight & Sound, Daily Record, Sunday Times and others that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 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. After extensive discussion there is a consensus that an article about this road should exist in some form. Discussions about what form that should be are a matter for the article talk page not AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

European route E404

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

This article is the only place I could find to suggest this road was ever planned. Seems to be a joke on HTML error 404. Sourceless since creation in 2012. The Wasp ^{[my nest]} 10:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: What seals the deal for me is this sentence: [[The route exists, but]] it is not signposted or on any maps.. This is clearly some kind of joke or hoax.~~ Actualcpscm (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I learned below (with some help), this is not a hoax. But GNG still indicates that this is an unsuitable article subject. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I changed my opinion to keep. See reasoning far below. Delete. Not a hoax. It was supposed to be a road that has been planned and was designated an E number, yet it hasn't been built. gidonb (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the map linked in the article does show a road in that location, but it doesn't even label it. Even if it's not a hoax, WP:GNG, WP:V, etc. Not a suitable article subject. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's why I propose to delete.~~ Just for the historic record, it was a plan and the number had been designated.[80] It's labeled on said map (you need to zoom in). [81] Some bridges for the road had even been built and were lately removed. gidonb (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I‘m losing my mind a little with that map: I can‘t find E404 to save my life. E403 is there, but E404 between the two named cities just isn‘t. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably looking at the main map instead of at the top-left inset. gidonb (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah, there it is. Thanks. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error 404, road not found. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Error 404 as the road really cannot be found. Perfectly sensible redirect :) ^[Humor] (Sadly 1st April's long gone - I guess I have to be serious and say Delete for being a non notable road, Fails SIGCOV and GNG). –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below. –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove that it is an actual E-road, then WP:GEOROAD does apply. However, its existence is in question. --Rs chen 7754 21:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand it, the road was planned but never built. And how rigidly should we adhere to a guideline that says "typically" when we haven't been able to identify any good sources? I understand that SNGs are intended to supplement GNG, but an NEXIST argument for a road that never existed seems to be a stretch, and I don't think we should keep an article with no appropriate reliable sourcing, even if it technically falls into an SNG. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article would have to be completely rewritten, because this article about a fake road is, as far as I can tell, about a 100% real road. Such roads are "typically notable" but I'm not seeing GNG, only mentions and primary sources. It is worth noting that almost the entirety of Category:International E-road network is stubs - do we need to have some wider review, here? casualdejekyll 21:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you cannot be serious about the last part. For example, European route E75 exists in 37 language Wikipedias. Are we the English Wikipedia so arrogant that we think we should delete an article that 37 other Wikipedias have? Rs chen 7754 00:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I care how many WIkipedias it's in - the English Wikipedia is the English Wikipedia. Anyway, there appears to be usable sourcing in the Italian and Russian versions of the E75 article for improvement of ours. But that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. casualdejekyll 01:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I'm interpreting WP:NROAD correctly, this kind of road is not inherently notable. International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable (my emphasis). It's the networks that are notable, not every single road that belongs to the E-road network. At least that's how I'd interpret that sentence. What do you think User:Rschen7754? Actualcpscm (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearly not the intent of the sentence. It would be like saying that states, provinces, cities, and counties are inherently notable... but countries are not. Rs chen 7754 00:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this truly is a hoax, then of course it should be deleted. If not, keep per WP:DINC. –Fredddie ™ 00:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb's comment above includes supporting documents that confirm this was a serious proposal, at least for a brief moment of time. This one [82] appears to be the minutes of some city/regional council meeting where members debated the merits of rebuilding and expanding the existing road N348 (which OSM confirms does exist in this area) for E404. However, if this is the only other source that can be found, it implies to me that this proposal was short lived and fizzled, as the portion of it I read (via Google Translate of course) sounded like nobody was enthusiastic about it. Dave (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you imply, there sure are reasons it never got off the ground. I removed my delete because the ghost bridges and a tiny 404 road section on them actually received sufficient coverage. At nlwiki this is a second article next to the 404 article but we should combine. I don't have the bandwidth to redo the article or even to argue a lot about this. Sorry. The topic is notable. gidonb (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz, I donno if the below refers to my message above but I had already corrected my !vote. Sorry for putting you on the wrong foot, if I did. gidonb (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is confusing because in the discussion, it looks like some editors think this article should be deleted but are not coming out saying the word, "Delete". I understand that AFD is NOTAVOTE but the closer should not have to interpret your intent by reading between the lines of comments. Right now, we just have a nomination statement askinf for Deletion, two editors advocating Keep and a misguided Redirect request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GEOROAD is a thing, and it explicitly mentions the International E-road network as types of routes that are typically notable. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: GEOROAD doesn‘t indicate that planned roads are also notable. Given that this was never built, I think coverage would be much more limited than in the cases GEOROAD was intended to refer to, so I don’t think this is notable under that guideline. We also have very little to go on to make, say, an NEXIST argument. I don‘t see it. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 06:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GEOROAD does not apply to roads that were not actually built. Reywas92^Talk 13:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International E-roads are notable per WP:GEOROAD. Roads are notable even if they were never built and gotten past the planning stage since there was at least a proposal for a road to exist, and usually there are interesting reasons why a road never got built. Unless this is a hoax, which does not appear to be the case, then this should have an article. Dough4872 16:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make things up. There is no precedent whatsoever that a nonexistent highway is automatically notable – significant coverage be damned – merely because a number has been assigned were it to be built. International e-roads might be notable, but this is not a road. There must be better sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 17:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely not sure. Looking at other pages, we could create a start-class article for this, but only using sources from the EU, which may not be secondary, and even then it's not much of an article. I think deleting this would make the encyclopedia worse, but it also fails WP:GNG, and WP:GEOROAD doesn't provide clear guidance. SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note also different languages have different sources and the Dutch language version even includes a bit about ghost bridges which were constructed and then deconstructed (and the ghost bridges have their own article too!) If kept, this article should be revised to look like the Dutch one. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The more recent delete comments are based on the idea that this road was never built. I'm.. not actually sure that that's true? It appears on File:International E Road Network green.png, for some reason. Clearly, it wasn't built as originally intended. I think it might be the otherwise inexplicable disconnected segment of A11 from Bruges to Westkapelle, Belgium, which doesn't otherwise appear to have anything to do with the rest of the highway.. or any other highway, for that matter. casualdejekyll 21:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it doesn‘t appear on Google Maps, nor Apple Maps, nor satellite imagery. What piece of highway are you referring to? The A11 from Bruges to Westkapelle looks relatively normal to me. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't built, it was a cancelled freeway dating back from 1977 according to the Dutch article. Stub ramps were built over the railroad tracks, that was the extent of it. Cancelled freeways can indeed be notable as well, so whether it was built shouldn't determine the outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion about this over at the talk page of WP:GEOROAD. I think there is some agreement that unbuilt roads need to meet GNG, or at least are not automatically notable the way a comparable road that was completed is. This is really a question of how we read GEOROAD, so that discussion may be helpful for this AfD. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 06:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least there should be a redirect to list of unbuilt European motorways - if this would be the only item in the list I think it's fine keeping it as a stand-alone page. It's very minor information but I don't want to lose it, especially considering it could be expanded. SportingFlyer T·C 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or it can redirect to International_E-road_network#B_Class_roads where it is listed as "road never built". Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps doesn't show E numbers at all in Belgium, and that's the only mapping service I checked. I'm generally unsure - that was just a guess. Note how I haven't !voted any which way, because I really have no clue. casualdejekyll 20:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we have no clue (because there seems to be no verifiable info on this whatsoever), that supports a deletion more than anything else. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely wrong that there's no verifiable information on this. There's available sources in the Catalan wiki including potentially [83] (the other two don't mention the road, not sure if this one does but the Catalan wiki translates to that the works are available there) and in two Dutch wiki pages, and continues to appear on maps for some reason. Also considering this was cancelled in 1977 there may be more information in historical newspapers, and nobody has undertaken that search yet. SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that we haven‘t actually identified verifiable information beyond „It exists.“ in the discussion. Re-reading my comment, it’s clear that this was not expressed well. My bad! Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's also not true. If you search for the right road, there's plenty on the cancellation for a stub, as per my previous comment. The problem is the information's potentially duplicative, as the E-routes combine a number of local routes, and this E-route would have been potentially concurrent with a single stretch of road. SportingFlyer T·C 21:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An additional problem may be we might be looking for the wrong thing. The E404 was going to be attached as a European number to a motorway which was unbuilt as part of either the A17, A301, or A11 per several different sources: [84] [85] for the A11 extension, and then the A17/A301 through some Dutch wiki-sleuthing and List of motorways in Belgium. So this really should be concurrent with either the A11 article or more likely the A301 article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks sufficient coverage to be notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Keep per foreign language coverage found by @Gidonb: Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment following are just a few sources on the subject. The difficulty is that the national newspaper archive of Belgium blocks access to the more recent articles. That said, there is much more, also in other newspaper on the destruction of the road. [86][87][88]][89][90][91] gidonb (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable after sources have been found on it. There's an editorial question as to whether this should be a stand-alone page or a redirect to a new page on a local Belgian road, considering most sources talk about the road and not the European designation for said road, but considering that page doesn't exist yet, this is currently the "correct" place for it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form since there are clearly sources on it. --Rs chen 7754 18:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The most recent commenters (who've looked at the recently mentioned sources) are advocating Keeping this article or at least leaving this page title as a Redirect. So, my question is if there is more support for a Redirect than Keeping this article and, if so, what would the target article be? I'd especially like to hear the opinions of editors who in the early stage of this discussion were advocating for Delete as this discussion has clearly evolved since it was started 3 weeks ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everything above. I feel vindicated for never bolding a !vote until now casualdejekyll 22:12, 28 August 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 12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Heydari

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

Simply being a fighter pilot does not satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 12:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's by far not enough here (or in my searches) to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No credible claim of notability and WP:NOTMEMORIAL Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:02, 8 August 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 until work on article is done; I intend to re-open this AFD (if appropriate) once it appears that the primary contributors have finished adding their stuff to the article, as there's still a lot being done here. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Joseph Schroeter

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

None of the sources provided in the article meet the standards of WP:GNG or WP:BASIC; there is practically no in-depth coverage of this individual in reliable independent sources. Note that the article was created by COI editors violating WP:MEAT. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, and New York. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I continued this discussion on your talk page; I don‘t think it belongs at this AFD. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I made inappropriate, intemperate comments that did not directly address the topic at hand: deletion or retention of this article. For those who need to see them, they're in this diff and in the page history.

I apologize for acting this way.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the articles again and determine if there is still insufficient source material. Per WP:BASIC, academics can be notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. The source link to his co-authored patent on acoustic plaster is a significant contribution to the field of architectural acoustics and these principles are still used today. Bcudequest (talk) 20:07, 2 August 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 12:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dotsoul

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

A WP:BEFORE yields some trivial mentions as references in digital media studies publications as an example of a virtual world. The cited sources in the article either also feature trivial mentions of the game, or the purported mentions are non-existent or no longer accessible. Even then, the mentions are arcane scholastic references and the article seems to lack reliable mainstream coverage. The discontinued and temporal nature of the game makes it unlikely that newer sources would provide the missing coverage for this article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find non-RS discussions of the game, but nothing more. I couldn't access the references listed in the article, but from the looks of them they're probably just passing mentions or very superficial. If the article does end up being kept, someone needs to go through and properly format the citations and tone down the promotional feel of the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:52, 2 August 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. The main consensus here is that this article is in need of improvement and, perhaps, a split. But that is editorially work, not something I can enact in a deletion discussion. I hope there are editors interested in improving this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of prehistoric mammals

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

WP:SALAT, I can't find good numbers for the total number of fossil mammal species, but to give an example, in the Miocene, an 18 million year time period, there are over 4,500 described mammal species.[92] Given that the history of mammals spans 200 million years 66 of which they have been the dominant terrestrial vertebrates, the total number is likely well over 10,000, which given the number of new mammal species described every year (see 2022 in paleomammalogy for an example) seems entirely unmaintainable. See also the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prehistoric insects and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extinct plants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 08:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split The current scope is unmanageable in both temporal and categorical dimensions. This should be split into separate lists - I would suggest by taxon rather than period, since we already have a few of those; e.g., List of extinct cetaceans, List of extinct rodents. This could be done for other extant high-order clades for which we do not yet have lists. Note that this is not required for fossil-only taxa (say, Deltatheroida) because the main article invariably already contains that list. Note also that this demonstrates that this catch-all list duplicates plenty of existing content, which is to be avoided. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that creating a number of smaller lists is a good idea (per Elmidae. This list could then become a list-of-lists, helping readers to navigate to the appropriate specific list. My feeling is that "What extinct mammals existed in prehistoric times?" is exactly the sort of question an intelligent school-kid might ask, and it's our job as an encyclopaedia to do everything we can to help them find an answer. The topic is good, but the current approach could be vastly improved. Elemimele (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Prehistoric mammals exist. Give ideas perhaps on how to sort it into smaller list. Wikipedia exist as an encyclopedia and an Wikipedia:ALMANAC, and size doesn't matter, WP:NOTPAPER. Dream Focus 12:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does it need work? Yes. does it qualify for deletion? No way. "Impossible to maintain" is a personal judgment. Just because you don't personally want to maintain it or think it's bad doesn't mean it should be zoinked. leaving out shabby incomplete lists as bait to annoy autistic people and thus lure them into our trap ("ill just make these 12,582 little fixes and then get back my chores") is Wikipedia's stock in trade jengod (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though a split of some kind seems right, this is never going to be a definitive list, so another option might be to pare it down to "notable" prehistoric mammals (which still might need to be split per Elmidae); "notable" being perhaps those species with a significant research record vs those whose info was recorded but then never studied in depth. Something that brings the topic down into the WP:SALAT range. - - UtherSRG (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Split and convert to list of lists. Definitely meets WP:NLIST. More importantly, the scope of prehistoric mammals is much narrower than prehistoric insects or plants, so we can rein it in and avoid running afoul of WP:SALAT. (Ideally we'll come up with solutions to those as well one day, but that's beside the point) This list is already in sections so it's doing well with regard to SALAT. I think some level of notability (blue links only, or blue links plus red links with SIGCOV but no article, etc) could possibly help as well. —siro χ o 22:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It should probably be converted into a 'list of lists' by taxonomic Order or geologic Period (or both) but that doesn't require deletion. It has a sufficiently well-defined scope as to be, at least in theory, maintainable. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:43, 15 August 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 Erzincan#Liberation of Erzincan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Erzincan

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

The Minassian source, on which the whole "Seizure" section is cited, says the town was evacuated ahead of time without conflict. This article is built on a false premise; there was no battle of capture. I attempted to WP:VERIFY by looking for other sources, but none spoke of a battle. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. There doesn't need to be a battle for a capture of a city to have its own article, but according to what was stated above, it doesn't appear to merit a separate article at the moment, unless reliable sources demonstrate otherwise. Aintabli (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Erzincan#Liberation of Erzincan. It still sounds like the content could be transferred to another article. Aintabli (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Excellent suggestion Aintabli. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep. The information the nominator mentions about evacuation is not in the main article, and the article makes no claim about a "battle". The good faith nomination may have misunderstood the subject matter of the article, as the nom's own research shows that deletion is a sub-optimal outcome. Based on the sources in the article it seems likely this meets WP:GNG, but WP:ATD-M to Erzincan § Liberation of Erzincan is acceptable as there may not be much more to add. —siro χ o 08:18, 2 August 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 Nazarbayev University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nazarbayev University Repository

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

Non-notable library subdivision. Badly fails WP:ORG. Can find zero independent sources. Central and Adams (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Kazakhstan. Central and Adams (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nazarbayev University. Star Mississippi 13:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. No RS found. Charsaddian (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by Star Mississippi, per WP:ATD-R —siro χ o 08:21, 2 August 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. This was a complex discussion, with a mix of deletes, redirects, merges, and keeps that were actually all specific as to why that choice was the only viable choice. Discussion appeared to successfully rebut the NPERIODICAL issues, but ultimately there was a rough consensus that the sourcing was inadequate to meet GNG. Normally, per ATD I'd go with the redirects, but as various !votes (on several sides) gave firm reasonings as to why a redirect was not suitable, I've opted for delete. If someone would like the material to add some into another article (or bits into different articles), let me know. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gracies Dinnertime Theatre

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

Appears to fail WP:NPERIODICAL. Weak sources in the article. The sources are either the publication itself or the RIT website. No reliable secondary sources.

Wouldn't be opposed if a portion of this article was merged into the Rochester Institute of Technology article per WP:STUDENTMEDIA. My Pants Metal (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Literature, and Education. My Pants Metal (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GDT started out on RIT, but was published and distributed on the University of Rochester, Monroe Community College, Rutgers University, and broadly in the city of Rochester, NY. It was never a RIT sanctioned organization, and really should not be merged with the RIT page. Kjoenth (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

re "No reliable secondary sources."

-Democrat & Chronicle is daily newspaper published in Rochester, NY (two citations)

-A blog entry by one of the founders is neither RIT nor the publication

-A brand new 2.5hr audio history/interview of two of the founding editors

-Independent Press Association

-USAToday/Uwire Kjoenth (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep: Does not appear to fail WE:NPERIODICAL. Specifically, GDT was printed and released on a regular schedule and distributed through a press syndicate.

-Confer with similar notable student publications Harvard Lampoon, UW's Onion, The Cornell Lunatic, etc.

-The Democrat and Chronicle is a reliable secondary source unencumbered by any conflict of interest. --U664003803 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that D&C is a reliable source, but I'm wondering if it was just a passing mention or if it received significant coverage by the D&C. The newspaper is locked behind a paywall so I don't know. Additionally, a blog entry typically isn't reliable under WP:RSBLOG. Can't say for sure about an interview, if that meets WP:RS. --My Pants Metal (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment I just saw that the interview is for a student-run project called the RIT Iceberg. It seems to be primary source material laid out in WP:INTERVIEW. --My Pants Metal (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re the article in the D&C: the article is specifically about how GDT/Hell's Kitchen was trying to get more funding sources. Mentions their membership in Uwire and the Independent Associated Press. Has pull quotes from interviews with people at GDT, Hell's Kitchen, and the executive director of the Independent Press Association. Approximately 2/3 of newspaper page, 1st page of the business section. Kjoenth (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re "blog entry typically isn't reliable"-- I am a novice at this sort of thing, but as the blog entry is written by one of the founders of GDT on the topic of the evolution of the logo, doesn't that make the blog a primary source as in "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"?

Contextually, it is difficult to see how a citation about the logo could from sources other than the publication itself or something written by one of the people involved with the publication.

I tend to agree with U664003803 that the pages that exist for other student-started satire publications offer good examples. Kjoenth (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was written by a person associated with the publication is why it DOESN'T show notability. Sources that show notability are reliable, secondary and independent. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr: Keep

@My Pants Metal lists two broad categories supporting deletion:

Appears to fail WP:NPERIODICAL.
Weak sources in the article, including the observation that sources are either the publication itself or the RIT website. No reliable secondary sources.

@My Pants Metal suggests merging a portion of this article into the Rochester Institute of Technology page per WP:STUDENTMEDIA.

I believe @My Pants Metal misunderstands what the relationship between GDT and RIT was. For this reason, I will begin with why the GDT article can not merge with the RIT entry

A.) GDT was never a RIT organization

GDT was founded by RIT undergraduates, but was never a RIT student organization. It remained an independent, student-run publication from its founding until its final issue in 2005. Since GDT was not a RIT student organization, the administration could not disband it. In the end, RIT President Al Simone resorted to prohibiting RIT organizations from assisting GDT. In the July-Dec 2004 issue of "Questions and Answers with Al Simone", President Simone outlined the steps the RIT administration would implement:

"I have decided that Institute property and resources will no longer be available for the production of Gracie’s Dinnertime Theatre. These resources include:

Computers and servers owned or supported by RIT.
The use of the HUB will no longer be available for the copying of the publication.
Funds from Institute accounts cannot be used to purchase advertisements in the publication."

The administration's steps to deny GDT access to Institute resources were necessary because GDT was _not_ a RIT organization, and could not be disbanded by the Institute. For this reason, it has no place on the RIT wikipedia entry.

B.) Does not fail WP:NPERIODICAL

As noted by user @U664003803, GDT was published on a regular schedule--initially being weekly during RIT academic year, and then as it's circulation expanded to include the University of Rochester and Monroe Community College, weekly during their academic year's as well (taking into account differing timings of holidays when RIT was on the quarter system while the other universities were on the semester system).

GDT, as a member of Hell's Kitchen (a 501(c)(3) organization founded by GDT to act as an publishing umbrella organization for it and affiliated publications) would go on the have articles distributed to university publications nationwide through Uwire, and had at least one article reproduced in USAToday through the distribution of content through Uwire.

GDT/Hell's Kitchen would also be recognized by the Independent Press Association's(IPA) "Publication of the Month". One of the founders of GDT would be interviewed by the IPA for an article.

C.) Reliable secondary sources include the D&C and RIT itself

The nominator acknowledges that the Democrat & Chronicle is a reliable secondary source. While the article in question is behind a paywall, that does not invalidate that the article is about GDT/Hell's Kitchen with a focus on their circulation and finances. While it should not be necessary, I am happy to provide a copy of the content behind the paywall.

Since GDT was never a RIT organization--again, it was distributed on three campuses in Rochester, NY--citations on the RIT website, including those from the RIT library archives, and Reporter Magazine, and commentary about artwork on campus, are secondary sources in relation to GDT.

The distinction between GDT and RIT is critical in understanding the notability of the publication: it was a student-founded publication that published, weekly during the academic year, for 10 years (1995-2005). It was never affiliated with RIT, the University of Rochester, or Monroe Community College, but was staffed by students (and alumni) from all of these institutions, and distributed on these campuses for the entertainment of those students.

As far as I know, there had never been an inter-collegic publication founded and run by students in Rochester, NY prior to GDT, and certainly none that engaged in that activity for 10 years. All other publications I am aware of in Rochester were either aimed at the population of Rochester, or were official student publications restricted to the university they were affiliated with. Kjoenth (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the USA Today source is a bare url [93] which does not work. Kjoenth are you able to find that reference please? We are saying the sources under consideration are:

-Democrat & Chronicle is daily newspaper published in Rochester, NY (two citations)

So the people doing it get a couple of mentions in the local newspaper.

-A blog entry by one of the founders is neither RIT nor the publication

I think this one fails as a self published source.

-A brand new 2.5hr audio history/interview of two of the founding editors

This is referenced to Reddit and YouTube. This doesn't look like an in independent secondary source. Was the interview broadcast anywhere?

-Independent Press Association

This ref looks good[94]. It would, however, be better if we had it in the source publication. This snippet is hosted on hellskitchen.org, along with most of the material referenced here, but that is a private domain owned by a an individual who avails themself of the privacy services afforded to private registrants and hosted by NameCheap inc - a low cost virtially hosted hosting service. This is problematic for most of the references here. Although there is no indication the snippet is anything but genuine, this would be how a hoax would be set up too. Presumably that snippet came from somewhere and we should reference that properly.

-USAToday/Uwire

As above, this bare URL reference needs addressing.

So, in summary, I think we need to do a bit more work to establish notability here, although there are potentially a couple of good sources here. If we can see what USA Today said, I may be closer to forming an opinion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a physical copy of the Independent Press Association writeup ("Cooking with Confusion in 'Hell's Kitchen'". Ink Reader. 1 (5): 3. November 1998.) I have not found a digital copy of that edition of IPA's "Ink Reader" on the web. The snippet hosted on hellskitchen.org is from "Ink reader". The IPA ceased operation in January 2007.

Similar for the USAToday/Uwire link, I have a hard copy printout of the original page. The material was USAToday reprinting an article. Unfortunately Uwire was bought in 2008 and suspended all wire services in 2009. Likewise USAToday did away with all the web pages that displayed reproduced material.

I am happy to provide reproductions of this materials in the talk, but ultimately what we are dealing with is link rot/material in physical form only.

Is the interview in Reporter Magazine (Boden, Jess (11 May 2001). "Life According to Gracies". The Reporter: 11. Retrieved 19 July 2023.) not an acceptable source? The argument I made was that, since GDT was not affiliated with RIT, RIT media count as independent sources. Kjoenth (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just link rot, it is that the bare URL refs do not tell us where the information can be found. Ref 7, which you describe properly here, is inaccessible but properly described. You could put a link to your copy in the url parameter to allow review, and then ref 8 needs to be described in the same way. I gather from the date that it is October 1998, so us that issue 4? That would resolve the issue with ref 8. It is not essential that refs are available online, but there needs to be enough information that the original can be found. Likewise with the USA Today article, all we have is the URL. If this was published in the newspaper, we can search for it in various archives, but at this point we do not have any information as to the date of publication. I have carried out newspaper searches for this article and have not found it, but I have been searching "Gracies Dinnertime Theatre." Is the reproduced article credited to some other name?

The next question is to whether these sources amount to sufficient evidence of notability per WP:NPERIODICAL. Those guidelines list 4 "presumed notability" guidelines, but I see no evidence it meets any of those. Not to worry though, because the guidelines are clear that it may still be notable if it passes WP:N, so we are looking at the general notability guidelines. To be presumed notable we are looking for multiple significant reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. We have potentially two articles in the IPA and one article potentially published in USA Today. It is not nothing, but it is not multiple, as per GNG either (because multiple from a single author, the IPA in this case, would be treated together).

Additionally I have questions about how significant publication in the IPA newsletter actually is. The IPA is a small (and possibly now defunct?) grassroots member organisation. If they carry an article about one of their members in a newsletter, this fails on the independent criterion. I can see they were granted money to do their work [95] and I am not saying they were unimportant as an association, but the notabilty guidelines require independent coverage. The USA Today presumably published an article without significantly addressing the source.

I also question whether any of these mentions are under the name in the article title, or whether the article is perhaps mistitled, but that point may be moot at this stage.

Although I am leaning delete here, I am reluctant to post that as a !vote. Is there an alternative to deletion here? You say it had no official status so it cannot be merged with the RIT page - yet if it were a recognised campus publication, I think it could be mentioned there. Or perhaps there are other places information could be merged? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy I'll go through the archives and pull up information about the interview with the IPA and the USAtoday link.

As for merging, I was initially dubious, but I now see the appeal of somehow merging into pages for RIT, the University of Rochester, and Monroe Community College. Since Gracies Dinnertime Theatre was staffed by students from all three campuses and distributed on all three campuses, it would have to someone be triply merged into them.

I joke, of course; that's an unreasonable action. Given RIT president Al Simone's position that GDT should not have access to any RIT resources, there is a sort of deliciousness at the idea of being merged into the RIT wikipedia page, though.

IPA is definitely defunct now, but with members like "Mother Jones" and "Bitch", calling it a grassroots member organization makes it sound much smaller than it was. Kjoenth (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect with Rochester Institute of Technology per the discussion above. I am sorry that I don't think it passes WP:GNG nor WP:NPERIODICAL, but there is some information of interest here that could be retained - certainly enough for a section on the target page. It is worth a mention that such a periodical existed, and how it was received (or not, as the case may be). The merge will also involve a redirect from this page that preserves this page history, should the situation change - although it seems unlikely it will change as it has ceased publication. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not seeing a case that this passes GNG and that is the only criteria that applies. There was a promise to dig through archives to look for more material so holding off a decision to give for that but the sourcing needs to be evidenced to keep this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging Kjoenth in case they have not seen the relist comments. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources just aren't there, and the intervening discussion doesn't lead me to believe that there's more, viable sources out there. Currently, the sourcing is lacking enough that there isn't even anything we could merge. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sadly I agree, and the fact the discussion went quiet leads me to the reluctant conclusion that merge is not really viable. I am striking my merge, but moving to Redirect as a WP:ATD. This would, at least, preserve the page history that might be mineable for a paragraph that might be added to the RIT page. Do you oppose a redirect? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with some regret; do not see references available to support notability. Nor is there an obvious target in the Rochester Institute of Technology article for a redirect or merge. - Indefensible (talk) 17:52, 10 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Belmont Sessions

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

This is a music-related article, but it isn't for a band, production team, recording engineer, or record label; it's for a web video promotion company. The article's footnotes appear entirely to be composed of 1.) the Sessions' own website and 2.) websites on which their work appears - i.e., client work, rather than independent coverage. I didn't find anything independent myself in source searching, and I don't see any branch of WP:MUSIC on which we could hang their notability. Chubbles (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. Kpg jhp jm 06:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is unambiguous promotional article that clearly fails WP:NORG. Given the nature of what they do, NORG is the proper criteria. Graywalls (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:09, 2 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Voices for Reform

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

There are no independent reliable sources to be found about this group. Current sources are dead links or pages that quote one member in passing. I do not believe any independent reliable sigcov exists for this group How I could just edit a wiki article (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Law. How I could just edit a wiki article (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep They have a ProPublica listing, and seem to have been discussed in several news articles...but those articles don't focus on the group itself, rather an event or a bill they're supporting or opposing. I could go either way on whether that is WP:SIGCOV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you find any articles that didn't just quote this defunct groups single member? How I could just edit a wiki article (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I added an article from In These Times[96] with some in-depth coverage of them. This[97] is also somewhat in-depth. The group is still active and gets discussed in scholarly articles, but those are either passing mentions or citations to their website.

Note that shortly before the AfD[98] this article was greatly reduced in size and sourcing by a pair of now-blocked (sock?) accounts who appear to have had a modus operandi of removing text and sourcing from articles dealing with this subject area, then bringing AfD nominations. One of those accounts is the @How I could just edit a wiki article. Some of the removed sources like a St. Louis Post Dispatch article aren't available online. I haven't seen them, so I didn't add them back.

As it stands now sourcing for the article is OK. Notability sourcing is, in my opinion, barely adequate. And if not then WP:IAR due to the shenanigans around this nomination and the recent edit history. Oblivy (talk) 03:36, 9 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Myong-chol

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

Deprod' again so taking to afd. Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per my BEFORE search. Jogurney (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 3 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doge Weather

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

(Non-notable app?} that now has a giant Nazi flag displayed. Does this app really merit an article? Plantdrew (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely fails WP:SUSTAINED, the only reliable, in depth coverage is in Slate, the other coverage is either in unreliable sources or listicles. The vast majority of the cited sources are from a brief period of a few months in early 2014. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Website appears defunct now, the Slate article is only one RS. The Washington one is ok-ish, but the rest aren't, so I don't think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only coverage is a blip of clickbait articles when Doge was trending in 2014, with the exception of this trivial coverage in a listicle. There is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this article's subject, and even ignoring WP:SUSTAINED's point that Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability, I agree with Oaktree b; the article fails WP:GNG either way, but if you take WP:SUSTAINED into account the article falls far short of approaching notability. The flag was added as part of drive-by vandalism across multiple articles and isn't relevant to the article at all. - Aoidh (talk) 22:17, 2 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El Arroyo

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NYC Guru (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems all the coverage is predominantly local from Austin as per WP:AUD. The only wider coverage I found is WSJ but it's a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. https://www.wsj.com/story/san-francisco-vs-austin-elon-musks-tesla-is-latest-to-go-to-lone-star-state-8b66cd2e LibStar (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well...godspeed, I guess 🤷 Americanfreedom (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~: while much of the coverage appears to be local (and/or aggregated in regional media based on local sources), the restaurant and its sign have been the subject of an interview in The Takeout (part of G/O Media) [99] and a book review in Texas Monthly [100]. No !vote yet pending further assessment of these sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to keep after assessment. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not in Texas and I'm hardly au courant on popular culture topics. If even I've heard of this place and seen pictures of their sign, it's got to be notable somehow.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT LibStar (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After a less-than-exhaustive search I've found a several sources of SIGCOV, from places other than Austin TX. I have no AUD worries here. Here are the 3 I read most of:
1. Coverage from Merced, California, Sun-Star [101]
2. Via newspapers.com - Corpus Christi Caller Times article about a book about their marquee, with direct coverage of the Marquee and restaurant itself. [102]
3. Fort Worth Star Telegram source about the restaurant, covering both the Austin location as well as a contemporaneously new location. [103]

Side note - this business seems like a regional chain, not that that changes anything regarding notability.

—siro χ o 09:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 09:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep due to ...its enduring legacy, appearances in local and partially national media, and its unique elements. It appears to have a significant cultural influence in its local area, particularly through its innovative marketing strategy featuring a humorous marquee. 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified. Please nominate wisely. Nominations based on "it seems", "maybe", "I believe" and the like often waste community resources. There is no lack of AfDs, to say the least! gidonb (talk) 20:32, 6 August 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 Good Vibes Festival. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 The 1975 Malaysia performance

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

~~Way WP:TOOSOON. Laun chba ller 12:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)~~ I think, with the benefit of a few days, and the points raised on the talk page, I think this meets WP:SUSTAINED.--Laun chba ller 19:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Malaysia, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the information here relates to a minor incident which seems of no great importance when it comes to having a stand-alone article: while coverage on the event itself is fine, I feel like such coverage should belong on the page of the band or artist in question, I don't think it warrants having its own page. The reactions section over something so minuscule also seems excessive. --Dynamo128 (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to merge and redirect into Good Vibes Festival? Understand the concerns raised above but think it would be good to keep the content. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though I feel like the most recent subsection in the band's History section is the best target location personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or what about At Their Very Best, the article for the concert tour? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I tend to think this should either be merged into the Good Vibes or the 1975 article, however this has received substantial media coverage and may be notable enough for its own article. --Bedivere (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also on the fence about this. While I agree that something like this wouldn't normally warrant a separate article, I think that including all of this content in the Good Vibes / 1975 articles would be overdue. And this incident does seem to have achieved substantial ness coverage - but WP:NOTNEWS still applies. – GnocchiFan (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into the Good Vibes Festival, or The 1975 article. This botched performance is not nearly notable enough to warrant its own article. Not much else to say for myself because everyone above me already said it better. IncompA 03:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer are you withdrawing this AFD nomination? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Good Vibes Festival. Much ado about nothing. Bloated content for an incident that was "heavily" covered for a day or three due to recency. Maxen Embry (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually now leaning oppose also because of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:01, 5 August 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. I'm closing this as No consensus. I could have relisted this discussion again (and I will if there is a protest) but I just see a difference of opinion regarding whether or not sufficient sources exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A2K (America2Korea)

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

Declined and deleted at Draft:A2K_(America2Korea) only to be copy and paste moved to mainspace after draftification, so bringing it here for discussion. I find no evidence of notability for this streamed reality show, with churnalism sourcing originating from the partners. No obvious merger target. Star Mississippi 02:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Korea, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 02:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON; I could see this A2K thing becoming a large thing here sometime in the not-so distant future. They are attempting to create an American girl K-pop group, and me and you both know the huge, and still ever increasing market for K-pop. If this ever gets huge, it may be time to bring it back. IncompA 03:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources used are not originated for the show producers, the show is a joint venture by JYP Entertainment and Republic Records. Whereas the sources used in the article are secondary, independent and reliable from the show such as Billboard and Forbes. Furthermore, I have found additional reliable sources [104][105] [106]. Lightoil (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
those are more interviews and reprints of press releases, which unfortunately do not qualify as independent or secondary. The Forbes link goes to a Billboard article Star Mississippi 12:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi, here are more sources in Korean that should make it notable [107] [108] [109][110]. There are plenty more here [111]. Lightoil (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A string of sources are being given, but it appears there is a misunderstanding as to what qualifies as reliable independent secondary sources. None of these qualify and WP:GNG is clearly not met. Per IncompA, this may be TOOSOON. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability (see WP:NSUSTAINED) and at this time the bar for an article for this subject has not been met. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy what about the Korean sources? Lightoil (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read them all through Google translate and that is the basis of my response. To be clear, refs 4,5,6 and 7 are all hosted on the entertainment section of the Naver portal, blogged by multiple authors. This is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy Look carefully Naver portal is not a blog is it just a platform for news organizations. Lightoil (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I think there is a misunderstanding as to what qualifies as reliable independent secondary sources. It is not just the reliability. These sources are editorials and columns. Even if you accept the reliability of the source (and I don't), that only addresses one of the 4 arms of WP:GNG. It does not address the other three. These are editorials and columns, making them WP:PRIMARY. See note d under that link. You say one is aggregated from a news organisation, so have a read of WP:NEWSORG which is part of the WP:RS guidelines. And this shouldn't be too surprising to us, because if all we have is a few magazine articles aggregated in a web portal then this coverage will have all the limitations of such journalism. We don't have here any indication of permanent notability - we have primary sources indicating ephemeral interest in ongoing entertainment. This is not significant coverage. Again, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. When people start writing about this as some groundbreaking / gamechanging show, we will have our secondary sources. We don't have any of them now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy I disagree with your view that they are WP:PRIMARY as they are written independent from JYP Entertainment and Republic Records and they are WP:SIGCOV as they are covering the show itself and not just a passing mention. Furthermore, did you look at my last link as there as many more sources about the show. Lightoil (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer below. Also I had a typo in my link to note d of WP:PRIMARY. Now fixed. Have a careful read of that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear my sources are news organizations; Sports World, Newsis, Maeil Economy and Sports Trend, not blogs. Lightoil (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightoil, there seems to be significant reliable Korean news coverage. ⇒ Luminous Person (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those provides significant independent reliable secondary sources ? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with all of the sources listed above, but for example, ref 5 ( Newsis) is listed on WP:KO/RS. It reports on the topic from an outsider's view and is not an opinion piece, so I believe this would be considered a secondary source. ⇒ Luminous Person (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So ref 5 states first that this is a piece written by an intern reporter, and then consists of 6 paragraphs of text. Paragraph 1-4 are simply recounting what happened, particularly in episodes 4 and 5. The fifth paragraph tells the reader what the programme is and the last paragraph is one line telling us when to find it on Youtube. This is a programme listing, and this is also clearly a WP:PRIMARY source. Someone has watched the show and is describing it. Have a careful read of WP:PRIMARY and the associated footnotes, because this is a point easily misunderstood. A primary source is an account of something that is close to an event. It could be an eyewitness account, and in a sense this is an eyewitness account. The reporter has watched the show and recounted it. We might question if it is also independent, but we don't need to at this stage because the source may be rejected for being a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of non-primary reliable sources and questionable notability. @Liow Jian Fei: care to explain why you moved a declined draft to mainspace without prior discussion? NM 03:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sourcing is wonky. The one listed in Forbes is actually from Billboard and was written by the same person as the first Billboard one. Covered in one source a few times (Billboard). Oaktree b (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also coverage in a Korean newspaper [112], some coverage in Yahoo UK [113] but it looks like a press-release. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 17 August 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. Ultimately the disagreement came down to whether the "+" in the NYT+ sources were sufficient, and it wasn't settled. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Burleson

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

Non-notable radio personality. The one NYT article is fine, but that's about all there is for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just about. This person is more of a social media personality than a radio guy, and there seems to just about be enough sourcing to justify an article, including in the NYT. It's fluffy stuff, but pop culture generally is. Flip Format (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Most known for hosting Fallen Media's TikTok interview series, "What’s Poppin? With Davis!" " and consensus has been consistently that's not notability, right there. NYT, fine - although I can't access it and suspect it's an interview - but even if we count it towards WP:GNG, that's one single RS piece. Other than that, we're at Footwear News (an interview) and I'm not buying. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The NYT article is actually not an interview; it can be accessed here through the Internet Archive. While this piece is mostly an interview, the paragraph that precedes the actual interview is enough to constitute significant coverage. There's also this article, as well as this tangential coverage in Business Insider. WP:BASIC allows us to combine non-substantial coverage from reliable sources to meet notability guidelines, so I think this is already enough. Pinging Alexandermcnabb to make them aware of the NYT article. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. The NYT is all there is to be said in defence but it is an interview, albeit with a gushy intro. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:38, 3 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Hartley

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet the sustained coverage from secondary sources to meet WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New Hampshire. Let'srun (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination, the article fails WP:GNG and seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E; no news mentions of her are found outside of the Miss New Hampshire contest, however of note, she does have a Instagram account with 27 thousand followers. Regardless if these followers remember her for the pageant or for her content is yet to be seen. IncompA 02:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the rationale in the nomination statement. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:38, 5 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndsay Kahler

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that does not pass WP:GNG. Is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is similar to the Regan Hartley AfD I just contributed to, however this article is even smaller. It clearly fails WP:GNG and is an obvious case of WP:BLP1E; the only mentions of her I can find on the internet are those copying the Wikipedia article. IncompA 02:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing else to add. It's open and shut. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons others have described above. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:21, 2 August 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 List of Street Fighter characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sagat (Street Fighter)

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

I will be honest this is not an AfD I wanted to do. However after rather extensive searching there's not a lot of actual meaningful commentary about Sagat as a character or his design, and far less than most of the cast. I've extensively searched through Internet Archive, google scholar, and done web crawls through various websites and while he's mentioned (often times discussing his gameplay in the context of a particular game) it shows he's iconic to the series, but fails notability as a character. Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: For the sake of transparency, while this was originally attempted as a WP:BLAR, another editor contested the merge and posted sources on the article's talk page suggesting notability was satisfied by them. However two of the articles were commentary about his gameplay in a particular game ([114], [115]) and the third, Undisputed Street Fighter, added little commentary on his own as is effectively a primary source (per Internet Archive).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There's just too little in terms of significant coverage. And while I'd say the gameplay coverage can be included, it's basically game guide content and doesn't show notability, especially since Sagat was not uniquely discussed (all of SF4 and SF5's cast got their own articles). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't believe Undisputed Street Fighter's a primary source. It is based on information from Capcom interviews, but was not written by Capcom and restates the information in the words of the author. The other two sources analyze his gameplay and a bit of his backstory, making him squeak past GNG even before you get into possible Japanese sources that may exist. I don't think sourcing is particularly incredible but I debate the idea it is obviously non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the two gameplay sources is that they exist not because Sagat is notable, but because Street Fighter is notable. Every character in SFs 4 and 5 got an article like this, so it's not like they went out of their way to write about Sagat just because he's a notable character. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't agree with the suggestion that the two sources that analyze his gameplay don't contribute towards the character's notability. For the purpose of this AfD, I think it's irrelevant as to why they wrote about Sagat, as long as the writers and the publications that they employ them are vetted as reliable sources and aren't connected in some way to the publisher or owner of the Street Fighter IP. Haleth (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They concern only one incarnation of a character, and even then strictly on their gameplay in that title and similar articles were done for all the other characters in that title; Sagat's gameplay is not exceptional nor being examined outside of the context of that article. If gameplay articles like that counted for notability we'd literally have articles for nearly ever fighting game character up, not to mention every competitive pokemon, or every character even remotely involved in eSports.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I vehemently disagree that intent is irrelevant. What you're describing - not being a primary source and being reliable - only go to establish that they can be trusted to provide accurate, unbiased information, not that the information they provide is a show of notability. These articles' existence establishes only that Sagat is as notable as th least notable member of the SF4 and SF5 casts. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Really, everyone from SFII's roster should have an article, and Sagat is no exception. The whole roster is so iconic, that I would be shocked if there's not more out there, besides the sourcing brought up here. And if we count gameplay articles, I don't think it's true we would have articles for the vast majority of characters. Not everyone gets a lot of gameplay coverage, at least not without falling into WP:GAMEGUIDE. So I support keeping the article on those grounds. MoonJet (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? You didn't cite anything. Come on, you should know better than thinking that a baseless assertion of being "iconic" is a valid AFD argument. Closing Admin discount this sort of fluff. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because I feel, in good faith, some editors are arguing more because they like the subject than practicality, I'm going to point out the essay WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES: just because something is iconic, doesn't make it notable. We've seen several examples of that. So repeating "there has to be sources!" does not mean a lot if there are sources to cite. If you want to help, find sources that satisfy SIGCOV, but "I'd be surprised if there wasn't more out there!" is not only not an argument it's a bit rough to people that have tried per WP:BEFORE to find said sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really an argument for keeping the article, per say, just a little benefit of the doubt. If I had nothing else to add besides that, I wouldn't be !voting at all. MoonJet (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everyone gets gameplay coverage, but Sagat is getting gameplay coverage because every Street Fighter character gets gameplay coverage. This is something that I would expect to show notability of a list of characters, not to say that each individual character is notable if they get this couple of sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly notable and more sources exist.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep The two presented sources by the nominator feels like it should help its notability, but a borderline case. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though no one has elaborated upon the actual merits of these articles. What do these articles show? To me, it seems like they convey "Street Fighter 5 and 6 competitive play is notable." - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The merits appear to be that Sagat and his gameplay is important to the professional Street Fighter scene. One might find this trivial perhaps, if you are not a fan of watching Street Fighter, but that would be an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It still qualifies as establishing context and making the article not indiscriminate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm:: You know every character, especially for titles like SF4, got articles like that. Again you're trying to present the argument that somehow Sagat is unique in this case when he isn't. Also please actually read what articles like WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it's been very well explained how the source doesn't work for notability in their view.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I find it strange to call it IDONTLIKEIT when we're pointing out that the two gameplay articles are indiscriminate. I believe that Sagat is important to the scene, just as many SF characters are, but the point we're making is that these two sources don't show that he's important. Maybe if Sagat was one of like, five characters to get a gameplay article, that would be notable - but he's not. [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] @Zxcvbnm: This is a glorified "list of Street Fighter IV characters" article, covering the characters not because they're notable, but because SFIV is notable. Now, looking at the shacknews citation: [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] Sagat's shacknews article was done because he was a DLC character, and they did this for all of the SFV DLC up to a point. They didn't do it because they found Sagat notable, the least notable SF character would have gotten this article if they were featured as part of the DLC they covered. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either we downgrade IGN as a reliable source because they made all these articles, or we accept that they mean that all of these characters they consider notable. I don't think the fact that there is an article for each character diminishes its significance, unless they were all lumped together in a single listicle somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculous premise. This is not significant coverage. The fact that you admit that if these articles were combined into a list should be proof that you're not even arguing that the content is significant coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the articles were posted several weeks apart. I'm afraid I don't see what's so ridiculous about saying they are each an independent article. They decided to give a full treatment to each character, and that says something about the characters and their importance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll contend that Crimson Viper and Dudley (Street Fighter) both have more said about them independently as fictional characters in reliable sources, and yet somehow the existence of guides didn't stop you from voting to merge them. In fact, you're the one that [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Viper|AfD'd]] the former. It's okay to like a subject Zx and not want to see it merged but at some point you have to look back at the standards you've set and realize it's making you look hypocritical, even excluding the fact you're trying to argue How-To content provides notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says nothing, because the fact that 100% of SF4's cast got one of these articles tells us that IGN would have written about any character in SF4 and give them their own separate articles. It's essentially saying that the SF4 cast as a collective being notable affects the notability of the individual characters, which is silly. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C. Viper and Dudley both got 1 and 2 pages, respectively, in Undisputed Street Fighter (unless you count a cosplayer dressed as C. Viper) while Sagat got a 5-page spread. The C. Viper AfD claimed that C. Viper had 5 pages on her, but did not really go into how much coverage was on those pages or what exactly it was. That is why I don't believe I would be a hypocrite for daring to !vote weak keep on Sagat. However, as the "weak" implies, I still acknowledge coverage is slim, yet viable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Character has a degree of importance that ensures his own article, albeit not a highly notable one; the user who proposed the deletion has a point but the article isn't exactly that unnecessary to warrant a deletion for the time being. NanaOn-Sha (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) sock puppet NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to List of Street Fighter characters. From what I've seen of this discussion, it's mostly a lot of "He has to be notable!" and while I agree, he very likely is, there just don't seem to be enough sources backing him up. General notability doesn't matter much on Wikipedia unless there's sources to back it up. If that wasn't the case, nearly every Pokemon would still have an article right now. I'd love to keep Sagat around and frankly I feel there's some good grounds for a potential revival in the future, but the current situation, from my observations, seems to indicate that there just isn't enough for Sagat to stand on. If some more sources get discovered, ping me, and I'll be willing to change my vote. As it stands, I feel merging is the best option, as it retains all of Sagat's major information. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to make a second comment here, but I feel in good faith there's a heavy amount of WP:ILIKEIT involved in this mess, primarily with some claiming that the character should be notable due to the others or being "iconic", which time and again has been proven to not be a standard with previous AfD's. Additionally despite the claims above, no additional sources have been added to the article, its talk page as part of ref ideas, or mentioned here. The main argument is that at this time Sagat does not pass notability, and that the major sources provided as a counter to that assertion mainly consist of How-To content specific to one specific game with no citeable commentary about the character. Sources may manifest down the road as they have with other character, and they could (and should) be worked onto the character list entry until we have a point the article can be revived. But for a character that is over thirty years old, the fact there is so staggeringly little we can cite is a big moment of pause.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some searching, and the best I found are some articles from reliable sources (like IGN) mentioning Sagat, but virtually none specifically about Sagat that weren't fan blogs or similar sites. It's doesn't matter how "iconic" Sagat is, he's evidently not iconic enough to receive coverage by reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs)

I think delete is a virtual impossibility here as there is a clear WP:ATD even if Sagat is decided to not be notable. I am curious to know if you believe, specifically, that Shacknews and IGN as well as the Undisputed Street Fighter section are not "specifically about Sagat". They seem primarily about him as a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first article is a self-described guide, which I don't think is a good source, leaving a single article on one specific incarnation of Sagat. I've never hear of Undisputed Street Fighter, so I can't comment on that. That said, I can't see any of these sources in the actual article, so if you want to preserve the article, feel free to add them. Cortador (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputed Street Fighter is linked here.

See WP:NEXIST, AfDs are not predicated on what's actually in the article.

I should also say that guides are not restricted for use as sources. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE applies to the content of articles. However, I also recently found this article from Japan Times about how Sagat was used as an ambassador for tourism for Saga Prefecture. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As others have noted, Sagat appears mostly, if not exclusively, in list of one kind or another (e.g. the guide articles exists for all SF4 characters, and the book also covers all characters), indicating that it's less Sagat being notable, and simply the Street Fighter games and franchise. Cortador (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect I have changed my vote per arguments above before the discussion was relisted. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per my previous vote. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't gotta revote, this is just to get more input. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Yeah, checking the sources myself on the article, there isn't a whole lot here. Not sure how this was able to come into existence to be honest. NegativeMP1 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is evenly divided between those editors wanting to Keep this article and those request a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The reception section is poorer than that of many similar artices we merged. Existence of how-to gaming guides is not very helpful - such guides can be found for many aspects of many games, that doesn't mean they become notable. It's just a quirk of modern day Intenet. If we treated them as SIGCOV, we would suddenly get hundreds of articles about quests or puzzles from various games, in addition to every playable character becoming notable. Nope, nope, nope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 24 August 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. Of those who provided a policy-backed reason, there was a consensus for deletion on failure to show notability. Several individuals did suggest the same merge target, but with some comments against it, I was nervous about going that route especially given weight of opinions. There was an even clearer rebuttal against redirection. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School, Barabanki

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

Prod was removed and only primary sources were added. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Barabanki#Education. --Joyous! Noise! 16:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the school is one of the most prestigious and sought after amongst the ones listed in Barabanki district. --Fz^tc_s 06:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the school is one of the most prestigious and sought " is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find sources to demonstrate notability. ThanksJagmanst (talk) Jagmanst (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - per WP:GNG & WP:V and according to nomination, I don't thick who its article available from 2007 and in 19 July 2023 this article is nominate for WP:AFD. Kind regards ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 05:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you say more? I'm not sure that I follow the points you are trying to make here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to comment to my keep vote: The school is one of the notable schools of the district (the reason why it is sought out for admission).--Fz^tc_s 13:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"One of the notable schools" is like saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, A Google search yields 0 results[138], Fails NSCHOOL and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucknow and mention at Barabanki#Education. There is not enough sourcing—or content, really—to support a stand-alone article. IMO, the better place for the merge may be the diocesan article; other schools in the Barabanki article just get a one-line listing. —C.Fred (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NSCHOOL isn't met due to lack of in-depth coverage. Readers looking for this specific school would probably be surprised to see its article space redirected to Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucknow; deletion seems like the best option to me. JFHJr (㊟) 22:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I looked through Hindi news to find some coverage of this school. Most sources for this area are likely in non-online archives. Nonetheless, I found one article in Dainik Bhaskar about the school's christmas program. I also saw the school performed very prominently in the board exams, suggesting to me it is a prominent school in the area. I don't actally know Hindi, but managed to find these sources. I say it is very high probablity there has been sustained news coverage about this school, that may not be easy to access online. Nonetheless, I think the article is viable as a stub. Jagmanst (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a few more media sources. Jagmanst (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that. Even I came across those links couple of days back but was not sure how to add the stuff to article so added google search link in external links section.--Fz^tc_s 11:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing Sigcov here. Okoslavia (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I want to point to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which clearly states that, "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them" (probably suggestions of C.Fred & Joyous! are on similar lines.).

Also, the point to be noted is that this article was created in 2007 (~10years before February 2017 RFC), when "secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence". So, the artice was not only created in good-faith but also was valid for 10years of it's existence as per then WP policies. Now i.e., after 2017-RFC, which although says, "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist", but also states, "References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AfD." & "Editors should not flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations.", there is a drive to delete this article. IMHO, the article although a stub, doesn't violates any policy (especially related to negative matters like spam,promotion, etc.) and covers a ~46years old important secondary educational institute of Barabanki district (a area with not much coverage by media in general and English media in particular). Considering these points, I still believe that article merits strong keep, worst case there may be a merge/redirect but definitely no delete.--Fz^tc_s 05:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC also had this to say:

"The argument that sources for secondary schools are more difficult to find than they are for typical topics because they are likely to be concentrated in local and/or print media is very valid. Additionally, the argument that removing the presumption of notability from schools would increase systematic bias is very strong."

I also note this argument made in the RFC debate has proven correct:

"even if this RfC agrees on a consensus that schools must be shown to meet GNG, I have zero hope that this principle will be applied to secondary schools in the Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or the United States. There will be arguments over whether or not the extensive local coverage counts, but it will likely be resolved in favour of the high school. The consensus of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES will likely still be the de facto consensus for schools in these countries. This RfC was largely started because of outcomes of no consensus or delete for schools in South Asia." Jagmanst (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, this particular school has significant coverage in media. It has been shown to be significant especially with regards to its district leading examination performance, which is neither routine or run of the mill. So despite not being a western school, it should be kept. Jagmanst (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contra the keep claims, provided coverage is threadbare and doesn't add up to GNG. Bhaskar is brief coverage of a pageant performed by students of the school, with nearly nothing about the school itself; Amarujala lists high-ranking students' test scores from several schools, including multiple students from St. Anthony, but again no real coverage of the school itself. If there were a lot more examples like the Bhaskar piece I would flip to keep on an WP:NEXIST basis that a school generating that much routine coverage has almost surely produced significant coverage somewhere, but with just the one I'm not convinced. Arguments regarding over a decade of evolving consensus on school notability come off as wiki-lawyering. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I put a whole lot of other media coverage similar to Bhaskar. See footnote 8. Footnote 7 shows TV news coverage about the school's exceptional exam performance.

Jagmanst (talk) 15:34, 10 August 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 Survivor Greece. Sometimes it takes 3 1/2 weeks to come to an agreeable closure. Relisting works! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Greece (season 11)

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

WP:CRYSTAL. The articles for other previous seasons were all created shortly before their start, while this one was created right after the previous season ended. The article doesn't source that it has been confirmed, and I haven't found any sources either. I think it should be deleted for now and recreated once there is actual info, in what might be a few months to a year. GoodCrossing (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GoodCrossing (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The show is in pre production. The producers have already announced the next season. I haven't added any fake information. The page will be updated by me when I have valid information. Survivor Greece starts every year at December. Valid info will be available at fall. Kostargr (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and I don't think that there is any fake information in the article. The fact is that there isn't any relevant information at the moment. Even if the contest takes place the same month each year, until there is nothing to say about the show, it might be best to redirect to the main Survivor Greece article (see the creation history of Eurovision Song Contest 2024 for an example). Once there is information about that season, it's perfectly OK to create the article again. GoodCrossing (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece and Dominican Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if the redirect suggestion has any support.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Survivor Greece. Article can be recreated once more information is available. ARandomName123 (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is probably the best way forward. GoodCrossing (talk) 22:16, 2 August 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 01:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Ringdahl

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

Lacks sustained coverage as a former beauty pageant contestant. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 2 August 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 01:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elona Rusta

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

Non notable cyclist, who according to ProCyclingStats never even competed in a UCI race. Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and Albania. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BASIC or any other WP:BIO. I cannot find a single English langauge reference with SIGCOV. Ping if sources are found in another language. —siro χ o 04:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very clearly fails WP:SPORTCRIT in the current state and can't find any other sources at a glance. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pretty much the entire roster of the Pro Cycling Team Fanini in 2019 is not at all notable and I would like to nominate as a group the whole roster. If anyone finds that any do meet the criteria we can definitely make an exception but from a glance none of them come at all close to meeting WP:NCYCLING. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG is not notable in the slightest. I also agree with Seacactus that the whole roster needs to be nominated as they do not meet any requirements of a page. Paulpat99 (talk) 07:20, 8 August 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 01:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Morgue (unreleased film)

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

Delete or draftify until release. Unreleased film. Unknown producer. Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines DareshMohan (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination, the film is yet to release, and I have reason to believe it never will. Photography began in October of 2020? It's nearly been 3 years and no word of the film has come out since. COVID-19 hit the Malayalam film industry hard and this film was one that was hit. It also fails WP:GNG and the producers (maybe multiple if we look at the article itself?) are unknown. IncompA 02:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NFF as the production itself is not notable. —siro χ o 04:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this film project is notable, no further sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NFF ,this film project is not notable.Divesome (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tagged it for notability since the language barrier was a bit much, but given the additional input here, I support deletion as well. 2pou (talk) 04:55, 4 August 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 23:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Torah Institute

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

Lack of notability. I can only find two reliable secondary sources, both published by the same news organization. Bear of Tomato (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bear of Tomato (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Bear of Tomato (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bear of Tomato (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary sources supplied, hardly anything in gnews. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. The majority of the content was unreferenced biographical information of unambiguously non notable people associated with the school. Short of something monumental like a (heaven forbid) school shooting or a major scandal, it's doubtful there ever will be enough sourcing to meet NSCHOOL. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 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.

[1] Bozkuş, Yıldız Deveci. "Ermeni tarih ders kitaplarında Türk imgesi." Yeni Türkiye 60 (2014): 2014. (Accessible as PDF from Google Scholar)

[1]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Dobert}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David C. Woll Jr.}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirahua Entertainment}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirahua Entertainment}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and Consciousness Review (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kian Breckin}} -->