Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 5: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:02, 5 December 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 04	December 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

William Stauffer

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Mayor of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is not notable in itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were also only mayors of Lancaster, with one exception (see below):

Mathiot was also sheriff of Lancaster County and an alderman.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Mayor of Lancaster, Pennsylvania as an ATD. Articles about mayors need to pass WP:GNG and illustrate their notable accomplishment and legacy while serving in the role. --Enos733 (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sympathetic to generally keeping the mayors of the top 50 U.S. cities, state capitals, and largest city in each state, but this town is the 10th most populous in a state and appears to have never been a top 50 city so I'd lean delete. However, someone should do a WP:BEFORE on each mayor to make sure they don't meet notability guidelines for something else (former/future mayors frequently serve in state legislatures for example). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One assumes the nominator has done a proper WP:BEFORE on the individuals. Is that indeed the case? Djflem (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I just did a check of the PA House and Senate and Christian Kieffer served in the state house. The rest appear to have never served in the PA state legislature. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did so check (see Mathiot). I just missed the one (and only one) ghit for Kieffer. (And why do !voters keep not putting the asterisk at the end, where it actually does something?) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Mayor of Lancaster, Pennsylvania as best ATD, a preferred outcome. Djflem (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may be enough to establish notability for John Mathiot, as he held a number of local offices including postmaster. Not sure if there is enough at hand to pass GNG, but a search of newspaper archives may be fruitful. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local offices like that (I have already listed some for Mathiot) aren't really enough to confer notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Stauffer

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

American immigrant who doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Germany, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a niche family history project, with nothing really for Wikipedia. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Čapljina

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

The "Flow of the operation" section of this article, which concerns the actual subject of this article, is unsourced. The comprehensive CIA history of the Balkan conflicts of the 90s, Balkan Battlegrounds mentions this operation only in passing, in fact in a footnote, not even in the body text. Another article of dubious notability created by new accounts that have popped up in the last few months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Another poorly sourced page by its creator. Mztourist (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dubious topic, but a quorum would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Branko Pantelić

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

Fails WP:BIO as subject has no notability, no WP:ANYBIO pass and lacks WP:RS. Seems like WP:NOTMEMORIAL breach. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to Garda Panteri, non-notable field rank officer, lacks RS, smacks of MEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my delete to redirect per The Bushranger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~Redirect - Recipients of high-level awards are generally considered notable, the question is whether the second rank of the Order of Karađorđe Star of Republika Srpska, which he appears to have received, passes that bar, or only the highest rank. If it doesn't pass, then redirect to Garda Panteri, the unit he commanded that was renamed in his honor after his death. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO, the Order of Karađorđe Star of Republika Srpska is a fourth level sub-national award, and in any case, this is a lower grade of the award. As far as RS awards are concerned, only the Order of the Republika Srpska (awarded to Ratko Mladić) and maybe the Order of Nemanjići which is specifically for prominent military actions, would even be close to meeting the "high-level awards" notability bar for soldiers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - looks like a Redirect then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilman Louie

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

non-notable person who created an article about themselves. 1keyhole (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article has been expanded since creation, and Gilmanl's current authorship is around 3%, so I'm not too concerned there. Notability is the bigger concern. The coverage in The Christian Science Monitor is significant, reliable (see WP:CSMONITOR), secondary, and independent. Finding a second source is harder. Most other sources the article cites are not independent, unless the government [2] counts as independent. A Vox article [3] I found may have significant enough coverage, or it may not. More than one sentence addresses Louie directly. Regardless, being on the Foreign Affairs Policy Board might mean WP:NPOL applies. I'm at a weak keep for now. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 07:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: This is from an old magazine [4], with the Christian Science Monitor, should have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure if this is the same person [5], was involved in Tetris coming to popularity. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well I just saw a page about this guy in a Time magazine from 1989 (San Francisco October 17). It was in an ad by Commodore for the Amiga machine. Curious how this possibly influences this discussion. (I have pictures but am not sure of the recommended way to add them here. I don't have so much experience with this. Anyone curious to see them could give me pointers.) Tamedu quaternion (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gina F. Acosta

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

Fails WP:NPOL. A staff member at the Office of the Vice President of the Philippines does not count toward WP:NPOL Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Multiple secondary sources such as The Philippine Star, Daily Tribune and GMA News Online have covered this government official from the Office of the Vice President (OVP). The OVP's questionable use of confidential funds under VP Sara Duterte has been among the top issues discussed in Philippine politics this year, if not the topmost (alongside tensions in the South China Sea and the POGO menace), and much of the Philippine media has been extensively covering the hearings conducted on this matter by the House Committee on Good Government in the past few months ([6][7][8][9][10]).

On November 5, Acosta was among the seven OVP officials who issued a position letter asking that the house congressional inquiry into their budget use be terminated ([11]), and by November 11 was among the four OVP officials ordered arrested based on a contempt citation issued by the committee for their non-attendance at the hearings ([12]). During the November 20 hearing, OVP chief of staff Zuleika T. Lopez and a branch manager of Land Bank of the Philippines gave testimonies that pinpointed Acosta as the OVP official who directly handled the confidential funds of the vice president ([13][14]). The varied independent coverage cited in this paragraph alone, in my view, merits notability for the article; further coverage in the media is also anticipated in the aftermath of the testimonies given in the Nov. 20 hearing. LionFosset (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LionFosset All the sources you mentioned are good but they do not count toward WP:GNG sources. The subject fails Wikipedia criteria for politician and non WP:GNG sources cannot be used for WP: SIGCOV. Please read more about WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This person has not ran for public office i.e. not a politician, so I don't know how WP:NPOL applies. She appears to be more of a career civil servant or a bureaucrat. This person is notable for one event which is on Sara Duterte's alleged corruption, so the best solution is to merge and redirect this with the article that discusses that, or if that doesn't exist, transform this BLP article to such an article. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck That's an insightful suggestion. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck You took the words right out of my mouth: Acosta is not a politican. Though I concede to the fact that the person is largely notable for one event so far (i.e. Onel de Guzman, a private citizen who created the ILOVEYOU virus), numerous secondary sources have covered the person not just as a probable participant in Duterte's unusual confidential fund use from 2022 to 2023, but as a government official ordered to be arrested after she was cited in contempt for her continuous absence from house committee hearings in spite of two subpoenas ([15][16][17][18]). LionFosset (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LionFosset All the sources you provided do not count toward WP:GNG because they lack the WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will continue to give arguments on this matter soon, but I am posting here for reference (and maybe posterity) some stunning developments that just occurred within the past 24 hours in Philippine politics (1. VP Duterte refuses to leave the House of Rep. detention center holding her chief of staff Zuleika Lopez; 2. VP Duterte goes on a tirade against the House committee hearings and curses at President Marcos, his wife and House Speaker Romualdez, claiming to have already spoken with a contract killer to target them in the event she herself is assassinated; 3. VP Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez faints from an anxiety attack at 3 a.m. and is brought from the detention center to a hospital; 4. Executive Sec. Lucas Bersamin deems VP Duterte's statements an "active threat" against the administration). LionFosset (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to merge and redirect as per my argument above. What's notable is what's happening, not her. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering moving the current article or redirecting this BLP to a new article entitled 2024 Philippine congressional hearings on Sara Duterte, or to Mary Grace Piattos scandal. This is similar with what the proponents in Talk:Alice Guo#Requested move 24 May 2024 on moving that article to "2023–2024 Bamban raids", only that it was overtaken by the fact that Guo had surely attained notability and deserves a biographical article, unlike this person, or the pawns of Sara Duterte, the Marcoses, Romualdezes and everyone else. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: I would be amenable to this, actually. However, use the former title (with some tweaking), not the latter. "Mary Grace Piattos" is just one of the many details questioned in the confidential fund use by the OVP. LionFosset (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Acosta falls ill during the Nov. 25 budget hearing (and brought out of the premises to VMMC with VP Duterte in tow) after admitting that she disbursed the confidential funds to the VP Security Chief in 2022-2023 on Duterte's orders. She is the second VP aide to faint and be brought to VMMC after Lopez. Humorous note: The Akbayan Partylist memefied the Duterte-Acosta photo. LionFosset (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards a merge and redirect. She only got significant coverage because of the current issue with Sara Duterte. But on her own, there might not be much justification to have a separate article about her. ---Tito Pao (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments are divided between Keep and Merge/Redirect but no appropriate target article has been identified that this article should be merged to. Please don't suggest nonexistent articles that have not been written yet unless you are volunteering to create them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another editor attempted to create a deletion nomination for Zuleika T. Lopez, a different bureaucrat under the vice president, by copying the nomination template at the top of this article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor has the username "Ovp.mprd", which is likely indicative of an affiliation with the Media and Public Relations Division (MPRD) of the Office of the Vice President of the Philippines (OVP). The user's attempts to directly attach deletion nominations to both the Zuleika Lopez article and the Gina Acosta article would go against WP:COIEDIT. LionFosset (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See previous relister's concerns. More is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is no article to merge it to (LOL). If no one wants to work on a new article, or de-BLP this article, the default is to keep this article until such an article is made. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. We already have an article, Efforts to impeach Sara Duterte. This article and Zuleika T. Lopez should be at the very least redirected to that article. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshimitsu

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

The reception section is a mess of listicles and "anything not nailed down" types of articles. While there can be some degree of commentary gleamed for Yoshimitsu, it's brief and often repetitive. Even checking sources I've used in the past for Soulcalibur characters doesn't offer much at all. There's just no meat on this bone that I can find. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2024 (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) 05:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Honestly, I'm leaning forward to being neutral in this situation. I feel like there's a chance the character might be notable since they have been involved in two fighting game franchises and have almost appeared in every main game of each franchise and gone through multiple distinct designs. Otherwise, the best source I could find about Yoshimitsu is [19]. These sources might also help [20], [21], [22], [23], and [24]. Aside from that, this character has three incarnations throughout the Tekken and Soulcalibur franchises, so if the character information is going to be merged, then the Tekken version of Yoshimitsu should be merged in Characters of the Tekken series, and the Soulcalibur version of Yoshimitsu should be merged in Characters of the Soulcalibur series. Kazama16 (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Den of Geek one is the strongest source coupled with Jasper's commentary on the Tekken character ranking list. The main problem though is that the Game Rant and CGMag refs are echoes of some of the commentary from that one on the designs and could be summed up as "his appearance changes frequently", PushSquare is basically death battle commentary in this case, and The Gamer and 3DPrint refs are both about fan works (I checked to see if the designer on the latter had some notability that could help but no dice). I feel there may not be enough actually said for SIGCOV when the sources are lined up is my concern.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Just not notable. The WP:GNG is clearly failed here. If this page is redirected, it should be moved and the DAB made primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. Very little SIGCOV and a very clear-cut case of not much notability existing for him. I'd redirect Yoshimitsu (Soulcalibur) and Yoshimitsu (Tekken) to their respective character lists, since he's a character of two different franchises, and redirect Yoshimitsu (No distinction) to the DAB page to be the primary topic, per Zx. Both lists just redirect to his article, so content will need to be merged to them for the information to be retained. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Kazama16's sources. Den of Geek (both of them) and CGmagonline are the strongest sources. Those two, plus GamesRadar and Bloody Disgusting and Game Rant, which all discuss his design and unorthodox fighting style, compared to other fighting game characters, may also be of some help. The more trivial sources can definitely be trimmed down, but overall, I feel this isn't redirect-worthy. I can see this being a Voldo type of situation, where most of the notability comes from his "freakish" design and unorthodox fighting style. MoonJet (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated, the Bloody Disgusting source would be good...but it's just saying the same thing as the CMag and previous Game Rant sources. Much like there's only so many times you can say "this character is sexy" in an article, "this character is freaky" starts to get repetitive fast.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. This is borderline, but merge is a good WP:ATD that will WP:PRESERVE this in case better sources come along later. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Tan

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

Other than winning the national Miss Universe in 2006, nothing of note can be found on her since then. – robertsky (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Beauty pageants, and Malaysia. – robertsky (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We certainly don't have to accept this because it is just an essay, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants) states that national pageant winners in the big four pageants (of which Miss Universe is one) are generally presumed to be notable. Meaning that its likely WP:SIGCOV exists. Given the year she won, it is possible the coverage was more offline than online as it was in the weird time period where everything hadn't yet shifted over even though the internet was up and running. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I tried doing WP:BEFORE through wikipedia library, and could only find two articles in 2007:
- Civic thrill for beauty queen: [New Sunday Times Edition]
Summary: About her purchase of Honda Civic.
- Celeb style [Malay Mail]
Summary: Interview about her fashion style.
– robertsky (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not surprised. The pageant would have not been covered in the UK or the United States but would have been covered in Southeast Asia. The best sources are probably offline (at that time; maybe digitized now?) newspapers in Malaysia, and I don’t believe most are available through The Wikipedia Library.4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above two articles were accessed through ProQuest in The Wikipedia Library and are from the two of the major newspapers in the country at that time. – robertsky (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they are both English sources which tends to cover a different type of content scope targeted more toward English speaking expats. I would expect better coverage in the Maylay language papers.4meter4 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NBEAUTY. However, according to 4meter4, while she won in 2006 and media coverage may not have been as active at the time, it is likely that most of the coverage was offline. I have found a supporting reference here: China Daily, which cites Reuters as the original source.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does this individual work in the fashion industry now? [25], [26], there's some mention of a fashion model in these sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Yes, it is the same person. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on my and the other sources above. Just enough to confirm notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Palmowski

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT as a driver who has only competed in entry level series (Ginetta Junior Championship and FIA Formula 4). Article is at best WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. MSportWiki (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, United Kingdom, Sportspeople, and Women. MSportWiki (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: While F1A is an entry level series, it has a much greater level of attention than lets say a normal F4 championship. Also, she has done the Formula E all womens test. The article could do with some padding out though.<span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> AidenT06 (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Palmowski, is a F1 Academy wildcard driver, and since all F1 Academy drivers have pages, why not her? She is also the runner-up of the 2024 GB4 Championship and can be considered as a future prospect for female racing drivers. At least draft the page BurningBlaze05 (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F1 Academy is an entry-level series, therefore its' competitors don't meet notability guidelines – WP:WHATABOUTISM is not an excuse. I have no issue with drafting, however "can be considered as a future prospect" is the definition of WP:CRYSTAL. MSportWiki (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know nothing about this content area, but here are the sources I could locate: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. I don't know how to evaluate content in this area which seems hyper specific to motor sports so I will leave it to others to determine whether this meets WP:SPORTSBASIC/WP:SIGCOV. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She seems to have enough coverage for WP:GNG - have added 3 new refs which are not simply database results listings. PamD 11:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to agree with Pam. With the sources she added, and the ones I found I think WP:SPORTSBASIC/WP:GNG are met.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to WP:N, she received significance coverage and pass WP:SIGCOV. Wyzoqaku (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Notable sportswoman. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I suggest you read the notability guidelines under WP:NMOTORSPORT - the subject does not come close to meeting any of the criteria for that, let alone a generic sportswoman. MSportWiki (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft- that does not mean she hasn't gotten any coverage because she has however it might be better to draft it 109.76.211.121 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She EASILY meets those guidelines unless you consider GB4 to not be a series of significant national importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duds 2k (talk • contribs) 13:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – I have to agree with article creator User:BurningBlaze05 here; this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The subject is 18, stepping up to F1 Academy imminently and coverage exists. Links 1 to 3 above are good enough; the rest are either WP:ROUTINE or primary. Moving it to mainspace this early was a mistake, but WP:POTENTIAL is high and several users seem interested in working on it. MSport1005 (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: per MSports1005 - subject could have clear notability/SIGCOV in the near future. Publication was too soon. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between Keep and Draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:POTENTIAL. The article already has at least one reliable source, and a Google search brings up several industry specific sources.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON I think. Source 2 is the only RS about this person that's an article, not just a PR item or a race result. That's about all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify A young sportsperson with decent coverage that is probably not enough to meet WP:GNG. However, the Autosport piece has about a dozen sentences of independent coverage of the subject, and other articles have some bits as well, indicating that WP:SPORTBASIC is met. "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." I think this goes beyond routine coverage and is a good start for an article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don't believe NMOTORSPORT has much relevance anymore anyways following WP:NSPORTS2022. Either coverage exists or it doesn't. JTtheOG (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tuschinski

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

Alexander Tuschinski has a penchant for writing articles about his family. First came the autobiography, then great-grandpa Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski, then grandpa Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski, and now papa Paul Tuschinski. I have my doubts about all of these, but this latest iteration of Tuschinski fandom really is a bridge too far. He was a minor academic with a handful of publications who never even managed to become a professor. He apparently helped his son hold the camera while the latter was shooting his film, a dubious claim to notability. Half the sources are links to his meager output, the other half a smattering of random trivia. Per WP:PROF, there is no reason to keep. — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. The articles I write rely on many sources, I aim for a neutral, encyclopedic tone, and I am transparent who I am. Therefore, to me, the usage of terms like "fandom" in your critique appears inappropriate and unwarranted, and I respectfully ask to discuss the articles, their specific merits and potential issues in a more neutral tone, independently of who the author is. I write about my ancestors because I do know about them - I aim to write articles in a neutral style and fashion, in a way as if I were not related. Since I am related, I take particular care to use as neutral a language as possible, and only quote named sources.

Of course, I welcome a discussion if this article on Paul Tuschinski is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, no matter the result. To address concerns: "He apparently helped his son hold the camera" is not what the sources say or what I wrote in the article. In several interviews, I credited his importance on my early works in numerous facets - the IMDB listing of his credits is incomplete. The listed academic publications in Romania are an excerpt (ones I could locate quickly), in the next months, I do plan to research more of his 1970s/80s academic publications. Given the difficult political climate in Romania during that era for academics, your remark "who never even managed to become a professor" isn't a wording I would personally use - if professorship is an objective criteria required for eligibility regardless of country and era, I do understand the concern, though again, I respectfully ask for a more neutral wording in discussing.

You briefly express having "doubts" about the articles on Constantin and Demeter. While this is not the place to discuss other articles, particularly those articles took several months to compile from online and archival research, naming many sources that are linked, and I am convinced they add important facets of Austrian-Hungarian and Romanian history to Wikipedia - which several historians have attested to me, as well. Please feel free to reach out to me to discuss those doubts if you like. Best wishes. ATuschinski (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not seem to pass academic notability, there are no hits in Gscholar or Jstor, does not seem to have an h-index that I can see. I don't see notability otherwise, this is simply a biography of an individual, seeming to exist around other somewhat more notable people. Being thanked in a film is fine, but we need more than that to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted in the !vote above, there's no indication that the subject passes the academic notability guideline or any other relevant standard. XOR'easter (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Camera operator and non-author contributor to a reference book are not claims of notability and there seems to be nothing else of note here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crew-served weapon

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. Only one, apparently unreliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect there's only one source because the creator was lazy. This is a very common term in military circles. I don't as yet have an opinion about Keep or Delete. Intothat darkness 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep common concept of weapons systems. Lack of RS on the page not determinative. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument, so please state which sources prove the article passes WP:NEXIST rather than just implying they might exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do any kind of search before you nominated the article? The Google Books search alone turned up over 6000 hits, and Scholar over 600. Intothat darkness 21:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and everything seemed trivial. WP:GHITS is relevant here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over 6000 hits is not trivial. That you choose to ignore this is concerning. Grossman's "On Combat" alone contains at least three references to crew-served weapons according to the Google book search, and one of those ties back to SLA Marshall's "Men Against Fire." Both works are hardly trivial. Intothat darkness 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common military concept and term is frequently used in both specialist and general literature. Intothat darkness 13:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, please include valid sources instead of claiming they exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-established term and concept in military circles. Yes, the article is in a bad state now, but Wikipedia has no deadline. I have concerns about the nominator's mass nomination of weapon-type related articles over the last few days, as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONs. Furthermore, like others you have not expounded on what sources are there, this is WP:NOTAVOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ stop WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think any part of my response pointed to me desiring to force people to change their mind, so it is not bludgeoning... On the contrary, I want to see what kinds of sources people are claiming to possess, which is a legitimate question. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been here long enough to know that it is BLUDGEONING. Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1. Responding to everybody IS central to the definition of bludgeoning. 2. Nobody has made a particularly persuasive case yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Polgar

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

Page`s notability might not meet Wikipedia's standards due to a potential lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An analysis of sources:

Can't access source 1, source 2 is unreliable, sources 3, 5, 7, 8 and 12 just have one or two videos from his channel without any mention of Polgar himself, source 4 is a self-published blog, source 6 is just a video, source 9 is his YouTube channel, source 10 is a...course(?), same with source 11, with just a link to his YouTube channel at the bottom, no idea what source 13 is but it's unreliable anyway, sources 14 and 16 are Amazon links, and source 18 is a duplicate of source 6. Sources 15 and 17 are the only ones that mention Polgar by name at all, with 17 being an interview and 15 just talking about his books on Amazon.

In other words, not a single reliable or significant source, aside from possibly 17. Procyon117 (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added few more sources, please have a look. Herinalian (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:AUTHOR. His works are being used by the Open University,[37] The University of Manchester,[38] The Canadian Encyclopedia [39], the California Council on Economic Education.[40] etc. Herinalian (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Asa Vines

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

Not notable business person. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable bank director from a century ago, I don't even see much sourcing in the article. Outside of those, you can only find Ancestry.com records. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2024 (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.

Wedding customs by country

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

Wedding customs by country is too unwieldy and too vague to be useful to anyone Drew Stanley (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed this nomination to use {{subst:afd2}}. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't actually have a problem with the subject-matter, because an overview of interesting wedding customs is very much an encyclopedic subject, and easily sourced. It is indeed unwieldy if each section becomes too detailed, but it can always have "Main article..." links to longer articles. But the current title is fundamentally wrong. It should be Wedding customs by culture or something like that. Taking one small country, that's part of a larger unit, namely "England", we have large communities who've lived here for generations but whose culture traces back to something else, and whose weddings have more in common with an Indian wedding (for example) than a horse-and-carriage pretty village church archetypical "English" wedding, and yet these people are as much part of England as I am and their customs are now as much a valid part of English life as mine. If the article must do it by country, it will certainly be way too unwieldy, because the "England" section alone will have to address almost every wedding custom seen in the world. Elemimele (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then it would still be better to delete and make a new article based on existing wedding customs-related articles; it would be better sourcesDrew Stanley (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the broader topic and grouping is clearly covered by cultural scholars--not just individually but as a comparative study between countries. While I understand OP's concerns, I don't actually believe this article is so bad we need to WP:TNT it. And for better or worse, when it comes to a lot of these cultures where we won't have the manpower to put together an entire article about their wedding culture, "by country" serves as a useful base divider. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate of Banu Talis

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG: no English-language sources seem to mention this tribe or emirate at all, much less any indication of significance. At least some of the cited sources do not appear reliable, such as this webpage with no clear scholarly credentials, or the vague citations to an online transcription of Ibn Khaldun ([41]), a primary source. Much of the article is also poorly cited and may include WP:OR. If there's some alternate spelling of the name that yields accessible and reliable sources, you can mention it here; I've tried to search for a few other alternatives and still found nothing. R Prazeres (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a hoax and certainly existed. Of the sources provided, 2 and 5 are no use as they just link to Google book index pages and not to actual text pages, but the other refs all check out. In addition I found this and this. The ar.wiki article is a very short stub and this much longer article has many unsourced statements that could be trimmed out, but it needs editing, not deletion. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Libya. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiordland Trails Trust

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

WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Environment. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are multiple articles published in The Southland Times that describe the activities of the Fiordland Trails Trust over the past decade. I have listed a group of citations from The Southland Times on the article talk page Talk:Fiordland Trails Trust. I think the article warrants expansion rather than deletion._Marshelec (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tick-Tack

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

No reliable source referring to "Tick-Tack" as a single; Most information stated derives from personal opinion instead of a reliable source (MOS:PUFFERY). George13lol2 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. George13lol2 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete the whole article though! just change that bit 161.116.133.70 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as per nom, in addition to failed WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV other than passing mention from I'll Like You-related reportings. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I'll Like You per standard protocol for album songs. No reason for an extreme solution like deletion here. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article to remove the MOS:PUFFERY issue, although the subject of the article itself is most likely not notable enough to deserve its own article. George13lol2 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you've removed the MOS:PUFFERY issue, the article will still most likely be redirected and the same thing happened months ago with ILLIT's song "Lucky Girl Syndrome", when it pertains to K-pop mostly, song articles are usually not as notable UNLESS they received significant attention. Eg. A pre-release single is usually notable but songs from albums that have already been released but receive a music video months later tend not to be. This0k (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The song has charted and although it is not a single can be kept as a song article. This0k (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is borderline, as most of the sources talk about the song in the context of the album. But the song charted, and a bit of media interest was raised with the Ava Max English version "Baby It's Both". Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timōrātus

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

Sources are WP:QS and extremely bloggy and they don't adequately support WP:GNG. I suggest deleting it. Graywalls (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Christianity, and Kentucky. Graywalls (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the HM reference is good, and the Lloyd Harp IVM review would be pending on the outcome of the RFC regarding IVM. that's two sources, and we'd want three or four. I'm going to take a look before I make a decision.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other coverage I can find that would be RS is from The Metal Resource, and it's mostly reviews. I think for now notability is definitely questionable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Nobody is questioning the fact they exist. So the sources do reliably prove it exists. I'm satisfied with that. Graywalls (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. This0k (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the Pages Burn

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

Nothing from this article or a cursory search indicates that this song is notable on its own. Suggest redirecting it to the album War Eternal. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Other than the sources already in the article, nothing else seems to pop out. Procyon117 (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vision of God Records

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

WP:NCORP failure. Signs of public relations editing also noted in edit history. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Michigan. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no significant coverage of the subject in secondary sources. I managed to find this interview with Heaven's Metal, but the write-up is a small paragraph only and the rest is statements by the label owner in response to interview questions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Harris (sprinter)

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, specifically "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject"; does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, to have been successful in a major competition, or won a significant honor, as described in WP:ATHLETE Stephen Hui (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Stephen Hui (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per these three sources. Left guide (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three sources clearly refer to a different Harris -- the Wikipedia article is about a sprinter, but the articles all refer to him as a middle distance runner. The Wikipedia article says he was born in 1956, but the second source says he was 31 in 1996 (i.e. born ca. 1965), and the third source says he was 21 in 1987 (so born ca. 1966). Not the same guy. Stephen Hui (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll take your word for it, struck my !vote accordingly. Left guide (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject tied the world record in the 4 × 220 yards relay and was an NCAA Division I champion, was covered in e.g. "Harris Looking For Better Times". The Daily Progress. 10 Apr 1977. p. 34. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Trackmen Ready For 1980". The Daily Progress. 4 Aug 1976. p. 13. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Rushed to Russia: Harris takes whirlwind trip". The Daily Advance. 21 Aug 1979. p. 22. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Sports Festival Was Not All Fun". The Daily Progress. 12 Aug 1979. p. 32. Retrieved 5 December 2024. I'll try to incorporate these into the article soon but wanted to get this out before everyone puts their !votes in. --Habst (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Does not meet NTRACK and unclear if that threshold could ever be met, but some of the information above could be placed into more notable articles, such as the NCAA Championship. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, subject actually does meet NTRACK prong 2 for his international Universiade gold medal. He also tied world records in both the 4 × 220 y and 4 × 200 m. Of course, whether he meets NTRACK doesn't really matter as long as he meets GNG which I think is demonstrated above. --Habst (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst: If someone can add that information to the article with references, I'd be happy to alter my opinion. I see there is that box there, but wondering why it's not mentioned beyond that. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, thanks, I expanded the article and added some context on that medal. --Habst (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, updating my opinion to Weak Keep Would like to see more expansion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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 unanimous consensus to delete, with the two new accounts who !voted keep—both since WP:CHECKUSER blocked—excluded from this evaluation. The agreement is that the article fails to meet various components of the WP:NOTABILITY guideline, with WP:PROMO alongside WP:COI / WP:PAID likely serving as aggravating factors. Thank you. El_C 14:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Mashiding Lomandong

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

Non-notable person. All sources are either unreliable or PR, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Philippines. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Weird. I had had this article speedily deleted on grounds of sloppy referencing, non-notability (a regular bureaucrat who happened to born into someone's family) and possible COI by its author. Resubmitting as these grounds still stand. Borgenland (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the only mentions of his supposed sultancy come from facebook and similar sites; don't see anything else that would establish notability. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The only news article I can find for this person was back when they were indicted by the Ombudsman.[42] AstrooKai (Talk) 14:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; seems notable enough for a doctor; was mentioned in two Philippine government news as a chief of hospital together with parliament leaders. [43][44] Cinemyr Films 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC) — Cinemyr Films (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Those are not enough to establish notability as they are plainly a trivial mention of the subject (Lomandong was only included because he expressed his appreciation to the donation), which fails WP:SIGCOV.

It would be better if those articles gave at least a brief background about Lomandong himself. AstrooKai (Talk) 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; In the official APO-Beta Epsilon 50th Golden Anniversary Book containing the acknowledgement and messages from Provincial Governor of Lanao del Sur Mamintal Alonto Adiong Jr., Congressman Yasser Balindong, Congressman Zia Alonto Adiong, and the organization presidents, the fraternal greetings of Dr. Lomandong is printed alongside them, containing his info background, occupations, and current positions including being sultan and regional director; marks notability. Slide 38-39 for his reference. [45] Rex 97Cavaliers 09:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Rex 97Cavaliers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A promotional fratbook and a bunch of WP:ROUTINE greetings does not establish WP:SIGCOV. Further I suggest both of you two newborn and dormant Keepers come clean if you have any WP:COI. Borgenland (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Besides COI, I'm starting to think whether they're sockpuppets or not, since Cinemyr is a very new account whose first edit was voting in this AfD (the user also failed WP:USERNAME) and Rey who seems to be a sleeper (since their last edit before this AfD was back in 2017). AstrooKai (Talk) 10:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The two Keep here and the creator of the article in question have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Borgenland (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks for the notice. AstrooKai (Talk) 05:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not voting because I have a possible conflict of interest; it appears that I know one of his many relatives, Princess Potri Ranka Manis, who I just saw last night (to shamelessly name drop). I do want to clarify the facts. The family isn’t royal in the sense of sovereignty like King Charles III; they are more like his German third cousins who are deposed monarchs with regular jobs in medicine and nursing. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also reference 5 is questionable at best. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:28, 11 December 2024 (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.

Gary M. Hymes

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

The sources Fail General Notability Guide and specific Notability Guidelines for WP:ANYBIO Ibjaja055 (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coverage from current sources does not seem signficant. One nomination for Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Stunt Coordination does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO. A cursory Google search turned up an LA Times article involving Hymes [46], but the coverage of Hymes himself is not significant. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 05:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable stunt coordinator and meets WP:GNG, his Primetime Emmy Award nomination is notable [47][48]. He has coverage in Newspapers.com, Movie stunt men at Hardy Bridge, and The Los Angeles Times article is still a good source [49] but the article is actually more longer in Newspapers.com, Just call him 'The Publisher'. Those two Newspapers.com sources help show that he does meet WP:GNG and that he's notable. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @MoviesandTelevisionFan: One nomination, even for a notable award, isn't enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. The Movie stunt men at Hardy Bridge article doesn't have a whole lot of information that could be extracted for encyclopedic purposes: He coordinated a stunts squad for Paramount's The Untouchables, he is (or was) affiliated with Stunts Unlimited (but not the action film), and he has a son. That's not nothing, but it's also not particularly in-depth coverage. Regardless, three sources is usually a good minimum. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 07:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The award still brings notable significance and Primetime Emmy Awards is a notable award nomination/win. The two articles still both meets WP:GNG and there are information that can be added to the article. Movie stunt men at Hardy Bridge has notable information that can be added like before he became a stunt performer/coordinator, he was previously a race car driver. Hymes coordinated a stunts squad for Paramount's The Untouchables and he also has a child is still notable information that can be added. Also the Los Angeles Times Article, [50]Just call him 'The Publisher' has notable information that can be added like the films/credits he appeared on and stunt performed on, is a former champion motorcycle and auto racer and his work/issues related to The Publisher is still notable information that can be added. Both sources are still WP:SIGCOV which it states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Both sources are in-depth coverage and it has notable and significant information about Hymes that can be added to the article. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Partofthemachine (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act

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

Why does this need its own article, given that it's just an internal House policy and not an actual law? Essentially all of this information is already covered at Nancy Mace and Sarah McBride. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Transphobia in the US House of Representatives - Both of the BLP articles mentioned in the nomination are BLPs, which should be limited to their BLP parts. Whereas this article is broader about the overall Transphobia in the US House of Representatives since the election of Sarah McBride. Documenting this in this separate articles, so that people looking for it don't need to go to separate BLPs, especially since the current article also now already discusses even more such are Marjorie Taylor Greene's and others' follow-up, so now it would be even more split doesn't make sense. So per my comment at the RM discussion, renaming the article to cover the broad scope that it already does is the appropriate action, not deletion, as these transphobic actions in the House are well documented by reliable sources. Raladic (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about two proposed House bills in the 118th Congress. The House bathroom bill was made law as a House policy by the Speaker. The broader all federal-facilities transphobic Women-only space is pending. "Transphobia in the US House of Representatives" is an apt designation since the broader bill is being legislated in the House. These bills are much more in-your-face and unapologetically transphobic than vanilla transphobic bills like PROTECT Kids Act in the 118th Congress. There has been a concerted effort by Nancy Mace, MTG, Elon Musk, Megyn Kelly, Rachel Campos-Duffy, and their supporters to slap and publicly humiliate Sarah McBride personally.Arbeiten8 (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per above Snokalok (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Politics. Bridget (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Arbeiten8. No need to redirect. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this caused a lot more outrage, media coverage, and controversy than most internal Congress policies. I wouldn't vote on renaming it, though. ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This clearly passes the notability bar. As for the renaming proposal, that can be discussed after the afd closure (assuming the article is kept, of course). A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't rename given that the requested move has failed. Astaire (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That move request was for a different title. Raladic (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As above. Meets WP:GNG Demt1298 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2024 (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.

Samson Arega Bekele

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable businessman. All sources are PR, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Aviation, and Ethiopia. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the {{not a ballot}} template on top, seeing how the previous AfD was filled with socks and SPAs. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did my research and read the previous AfD as well. The issues raised in the previous AfD were addressed. I do not think it is right to say sources are PR. For instance, the source with https://aec.afdb.org/ is from African Economic Conference (the equivalent of World Economic Conference in Africa) of African Development Bank (the equivalent of World Bank in Africa). My judgement is that an institution of this nature cannot be regarded as PR Source. Again, from my research, one of the sources TimesKuwait has been in the media space since 1996 and another The African Times have been around since 1989. These are independent sources in their own right. Another source - https://aviationbusinessjournal.aero/ is an influential aviation magazine. Since the subject is a top airline business executive, the rest sources are travel and aviation magazines including one that is associated with Havard. So I think the claim questioning the reliability of the sources is wrong. Again, compare the first article and this article and you will see that all issues violated by the first editor were fixed in this new article. The subject is a notable african airline executive in Africa and North America and I think it should stay with subsequent improvements as with all wikipedia articles. Cheers ! Astra Los Angeles (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, it's not a puffy as last time, but the "group vice president for customer experience" is very much a mid-level business executive, just above the rank and file. Sourcing now is largely from trade magazines, so nothing has changed since last time. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The VP is not a mid-level executive. See this [51] Further research here [52] also shows that there are C, V, D and B level executives and the only category rated as mid level executives here are the B level [53]. VPs fall under the V-suite that are rated senior executives and their roles or level of power depends on the organization and the country. Let's refer to the company itself. The GVP is included in Ethiopian Airlines senior level leadership team as captured here [54] but debating whether VP is a notable position or not is not the main crux and we have to refer to the Wikipedia guidelines on notability here Wikipedia:Notability (people) to consider whether the subject meets the notability criteria. First, the sources are independent and sources like the African Development Bank and the African Business Club of Harvard Business School [55] both mentioned the subject's receipt of US Presidential Lifetime Award which recognizes his contributions. Ethiopian Airline is Africa's largest airline and the subject was its face in North America for two years. Even though the VP is a notable position, the subject is not listed here because he is a VP. He is listed here because he is covered by several independent sources (especially in the african aviation industry where he belongs), the role he played in the airline industry during the COVID pandemic as MD in Canada (that earned him the NCBN Business person of the year award in 2021) and the significant award he bagged in the U.S IN 2023 as contained in the sources. When you look at the profiles of many CEOs on wikipedia including the current CEO of ethiopian airlines, that of this subject has more weight. You can be an ordinary classroom teacher and do big things. In the african aviation industry, the subject has earned it. Astra Los Angeles (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For perspective, he is (or was) one in a list of 179 similar people [56], so this is very much not a notable position. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is a yet to be updated website page. This is the current page for Ethiopian Airline corporate executive Team [57] - the apex leadership and management team of the company. The subject is listed there. Astra Los Angeles (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Non-notable businessperson, with shallow, limited coverage. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep argument. A source assessment would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snooze (Agust D song)

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

Do not believe this passes NSONG. Charting is almost certainly too little (Vietnam Hot 100 page doesn't even verify it's charting; this page does, but that the sourced page doesn't even go past the top 25 of the chart suggests non-notability of the peak position), and the rest of the sourcing is album reviews which all barely mention the song specifically and a database page. Redirect to D-Day (album). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and South Korea. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the song has charted on several national charts (Japan Oricon, Billboard Japan, Billboard Vietnam Hot 100, United States Billboard Digital Song Sales) which is a criteria for WP:NSONG. In addition, there is likely enough coverage in existence to expand the article to be more than the stub it is right now. RachelTensions (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced article, Top 20 in Japan, clearly meets WP:NSONG. 162 etc. (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album per NSONG: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." The only other sources being unimpressive appearances in chart statistics is a very low bar and should be ignored. Tag the redirect as having possibilities. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the WP:NSONG criteria is being met, as exemplified by RachelTensions. The article could also easily be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion of charting in NSONG is about establishing if a song might be notable, not that it is; charting itself is not not a criterion for being notable. WP:NALBUMS too outlines that charting is only an indication that a recording may be notable, not that it is. At this time, the article is two sentences, supported by three reviews of the song's parent album, and its genre stated in the infobox just failed verification in its source. @RachelTensions and Ïvana: you both talk about expanding the article to meet the actual criterion of NSONG; I'd like to see your proposed additions. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Few people are likely to do the work when the article might be deleted after they're done, nor are they obligated to do so. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't ask or suggest that anyone should do the work to expand the article now; you've read between the lines. I am asking for evidence that the article can be expanded to a satisfactory degree, as it doesn't appear obvious to me. Since this is supposed to be a discussion, and not a vote, I don't think my request is unreasonable. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NSONG. dxneo (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to D-Day (album) per nom and Fred Gandt. Charting in and of itself is not a criterion for passing WP:NSONGS. The other sources provided are in context of the album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments are divided between Keep and Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the album. Charting could be notable, but there isn't enough sourcing for an article on the song alone. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to D-Day (album). Although this article cites reliable sources, their coverage of the song is trivial at best, so it does not meet the criteria for N:SONG. There also is not enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article about the subject.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before we get too carried away saying there isn't significant coverage...
Other sources significantly covering the song (outside of the context of just a review of the album) include:

Its inclusion in Time Out's "Best 23 Songs of 2023" list [58]

And significant coverage in articles at:

...and that's not even going into all the Japanese-language sources that I'm not familiar enough with to verify. Many sources cover the song as it was the final song completed by Japanese composer Ryuichi Sakamoto prior to his death, and, like I said prior, there's more than enough significant coverage here to put together a perfectly acceptable non-stub article (especially when combined with information on the song in sources that cover it within the broader scope an album review), and its charting coverage.

CC: @DesiMoore @Oaktree b @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars @Fred Gandt

RachelTensions (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- And you didn't feel like mentioning this at all when asked directly about it earlier? I'm no longer involved in this lack of discussion. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I’m sorry? I didn’t realize we were on a deadline here. If the discussion hasn’t been closed, I’ll present my research at my own leisure without being chastised for it. Thank you! RachelTensions (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just gonna chime in, We Got This Covered is not considered a reliable source. LoTrWiki (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, removed from the list. RachelTensions (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source analysis of recent sources brought into the discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 The New School. I assume this is the Redirect target article participants wanted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gnarls Narwhal

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

Simply not notable. Nearly all sources come from the mascot's university, which is too narrow. The remaining two sources are culture war churn pieces that don't say much. The creator, Mollystarkdean also has COI, as she is a New School professor. It would be better to include it either in the university's article as an example of their progressivism or as their sports team mascot. Ornov Ganguly TALK 03:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Schools. Ornov Ganguly TALK 03:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge: to the article about the school. Just not enough stand-alone sourcing, non-primary sourcing, to have an article. Not fussed if we either redirect or merge. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC) hi[reply]
Shoot, forgot that was a separate procedure. Full support for this. Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: The subject of the article doesn't meet notability. BEFORE turns up nothing substantial, and the references used are either directly related to the New School or via unreliable sources. (See WP:GAWKER and the articles about The College Fix and Campus Reform.) JSFarman (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the university's main article. Fails GNG. A side note: it appears there is a whole suite of articles related to this school that would be better redirected, and the mother article needs a serious trimming. There are very few reliable independent sources anywhere in the entire suite of articles. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2024 (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. Even ignoring the potential cavassing, there is a snowball consensus to keep this page. charlotte ^👸♥ 02:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Joyner (business executive)

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

If you came here because of a post/tweet on X/Twitter, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

WP:BEFORE reveals effectively nothing before being promoted to CEO in October 2024 (the lone exception being one 2023 press release, which does not contribute to notability). It also reveals nothing afterward. Joyner was therefore covered for a single day, and that was only in the singular context of a few national news articles which give extremely minimal coverage to Joyner himself. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NBIO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In what way is the CEO of a major American Health Corporation "not notable?" Could you be specific? Gosos67 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A company that has such an intimate impact on millions of lives both financially and physically, should have its leadership structure remain public for obvious accountability reasons. 2A00:23C7:D501:1801:CC5B:C3E:888E:4F9F (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not just that, but it's also a Fortune 500 company. Pidey (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: this guy is notable enough. Apeholder (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand the sensitivities given recent events, but Mr. Joyner is an important public figure as the CEO of a publicly traded major American corporation. Deleting his profile is a dangerous precedent and against the core mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. 73.25.155.67 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like a brief press release about David Joyner. Whether or not CVS survives the current fiscal challenges is notable, but executives come and go. — Maile (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument this comment presents for deletion is deeply flawed. It is grounded specifically in the idea that executive positions are transient by nature. But of course, that also applies to all public officials and public offices, elected officials and people in society who exert influence. By their nature, politicians come and go, but the communities they represent remain. The logical implications of this 'appeal to transience' argument then, are that every Wiki page related to specific politicians should be deleted, politicians also being transient office bearers. This is not an advisable precedent to set. 77.103.87.249 (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that makes this a case for revision and expansion, not deletion. He is certainly a notable figure, as he is the head of the largest pharmacy chain in the U.S. PxBx (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I understand the criticism of the Before section of this page. This would simply merit an improvement of said section, not the deletion of the entire page. Chief Executive Officer of a major pharmaceutical company is a notable title to be held. While I do not question if this discussion started in good faith or not (as per the Wiki guidelines) I find it concerning that fellow editors would consider deletion based off of what I believe to be weak reasoning. Bubirkullaniciadi (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The quality of the article should not affect the fact that this person is notable enough to have a page. We should instead add to and edit the page, and make suggestions on how do better write it. Bdonvr (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Health and fitness, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2001:56A:72D4:6F00:1A5A:ACF6:245E:7E22 (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is crazy reaction to the UHC CEO. Are you really that much of a shill?? Look at the company website it literally lists him as CEO. 66.69.57.207 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should remain up for the interest of the community. Also it is strange you are nominating it for deletion at a very convenient time when CEOs are trying to hide their digital footprints. I do not believe you are doing this in a genuine manner. The community should investigate possible collusion. LuffyDe (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W 50.245.226.17 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator and this is the goofiest aspersion I have heard on here in a very long time. If the nominator turns out to somehow secretly getting cheques cut from the... freaking...David Joyner gravy train(?) I will block them for WP:UPE myself and personally send you a hundred bucks. But otherwise this is a total load of dreck. jp×g 🗯️ 18:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an attorney, I have it on solid information that UHC and other health-related companies have put together surveillance and wipe teams seeking, among other things, to limit unnecessary executive exposure online. Please provide the names and details for the nominators. I will track down all connections to law firms and other business interests to prove the nominators are being influenced. You will then owe me money. Simon perdorian (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems very much like an attempt to 'out' editors. Knitsey (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can I get $100 too? I'm not casting any aspersions or anything, I'm just broke. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources indicated by ErrorCorrection1 show he is a notable person -- not to mention the very likely possibility of a coordinated push to remove his information publicly. Gel-Veen (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is clearly a notable person with reliable coverage. Aresef (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP the timing is too convenient for me to believe that this is a good faith submission. The question of deleting this page has never seen much support, and deleting it now would obviously just be in response to recent events, and not due to any valid breach of Wikipedia guidelines ~~~~ DnBpowerlistener (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Joyner is most definitely notable enough to warrant an article. Motioning to outright delete an article of a major executive when it's already been thoroughly written is not in anyone, especially the public's, best interest. Swipe4004 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an egregiously bad-faith deletion attempt fueled by pearl-clutching bootlickers. Nyalcoholic (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot imagine any reason why an executive of a public company shouldn’t have a wiki page. Absolutely insane that we have people protecting billionaires on this site. 73.11.237.25 (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - public figure of a major corporation whose decisions can impact millions. We all know the real reason why there is a push to delete this information. If a CEO is that afraid then he should make better decisions or quit. COPhotog (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he’s sufficiently notable. If the article is poorly written, then we should rewrite the article to be better Snokalok (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the CEO is a notable individual in charge of a Fortune 500 company. Dc55555 (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is a public figure of a famous organization and therefore there is no reason to eliminate a wikipedia page about him. If TheTechnician27 really is trying to clean up this article based on its own merits, then this is horrible timing and the article should be improved instead.

The only alternative to above is if the Technician27 has ulterior motives (not accusing, just hypothetical). In which case it 100% should remain.

From no angle does this article's deletion make any sense. RavenToLeviathan (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Notability is well established and well sourced per ErrorCorrection1's research, though article should be improved nonetheless. That said, accusations that TheTechnician27 has ulterior motives are in deeply bad faith and don't have any supporting evidence. Altorespite 🌿 01:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person is a public figure. The CEO of a publicly traded company should also have their biographical information published, as their actions could affect the stock price of the company. 72.240.228.130 (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More notable that a TV episode, which Wikipedia deems notable. Also has reliable source coverage.

https://rhodeislandcurrent.com/2024/10/18/cvs-health-is-hurting-will-a-new-ceo-cure-its-financial-ills/ About his tasks at troubled CVS

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/18/cvs-to-replace-ceo-karen-lynch-with-exec-david-joyner.html

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/cvs-name-long-time-exec-david-joyner-new-ceo-wsj-reports-2024-10-18/

https://www.depts.ttu.edu/rawlsbusiness/advisory-council/david-joyner/ About Texas Tech, not about CEO

https://www.hillphysicians.com/staff/david-joyner From 2015

https://fortune.com/2024/04/03/time-for-facts-in-the-pbm-debate/ His ideas before being CEO

ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason a chief executive of one of the largest health care companies on earth shouldn't have a page. ReiPeixe (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. David Joyner also received coverage prior to becoming president/CEO of CVS when he testified before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability about pharmacy benefit managers and perscription drug markets. [68][69][70][71][72] Testimony that continued to generate controversy months later. [73][74] GeorgiaHuman (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources found by ErrorCorrection1 and GeorgiaHuman demonstrate Joyner's notability. Thriley (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ErrorCorrection1 and GeorgiaHuman.—indopug (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ErrorCorrection1 and GeorgiaHuman, he has recieved plenty of press attention as the CEO of an S&P 500 company.Cthulhu Inc (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ErrorCorrection1 and GeorgiaHuman. Seems to have notability. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ErrorCorrection1, plenty of references to him in notable news sources. Maybe not notable enough for a statue, but certainly a Wikipedia article. Ohmsteader (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per ErrorCorrection1 and GeorgiaHuman. It's pretty clear what is going on here. This page should remain for the time being. Even if this page isn't relevant, now isn't the time to delete it, per WP:NORUSH

DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is evident whats going on here.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazadawg (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ErrorCorrection1 and GeorgiaHuman. Hello im cori (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ErrorCorrection1 and GeorgiaHuman. Remikipedia (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ErrorCorrection1 and GeorgiaHuman. David Joyner is the CEO of a major corporation and as ErrorCorrection1 demonstrated, there are plenty of independent sources for WP:NBIO. It may be a stub at the moment, but that's not necessarily grounds for deletion. Much appreciated, friend! -Avery Trashmouth — Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Seems there's no real debate here and the keeps have the argument locked down. --Ipatrol (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ErrorCorrection1 and GeorgiaHuman. JDCMAN (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been discussion about canvassing as a concern from other editors, there are a wide variety of notable sources for this individual. This has been beyond adequately displayed in the conversation chain here.

If we collectively 100% completely ignore recent events in the industry as related and take all arguments on good faith, the original argument for deletion fails as there are numerous reputable sources for Wikipedia:NBIO to be satisfied. Per HorseDonkey, other CVS CEOs have also had standalone articles.

If there are concerns over WP:NPOV, deletion is not an excuse to address NPOV issuers per WP:POVDELETION. JDCMAN (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ErrorCorrection1 and GeorgiaHuman both said it well. –Fpmfpm (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. A post on social media that has received over 100k views was created about this article, with talk about this discussion in the replies, at 16:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC). --Super Goku V (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comments by ErrorCorrection1 and GeorgiaHuman. They are public figures and business executives of massive corporations, this should be publicly accessible information, especially on an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. MyJunoBaldwin (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The CEO of the No. 6 company on the Fortune 500 is ipso facto notable. 199.66.14.55 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned by others, the request is very problematic but it's also extremely evident that deletion would be serving only the CEO in panic, as opposed to the public. Nagi603 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no point in deleting this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1308:28F7:5E00:342C:4D8D:748F:14D3 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Does not seem to be in good faith considering current events, as people above have proven notability — IмSтevan ^talk 19:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per ErrorCorrection1, GeorgiaHuman, and others. Obvious WP:GNG pass. Sal2100 (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. At this point it's indisputable that it should remain, per everyone above me. Royal Scottish (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)RoyalScottish[reply]
Weak Keep It looks like there are some quality references here, indicating that there are more out there, but I think expansion is required to cement notability. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.:1. Public Interest and Notability

As the CEO of CVS Health, a Fortune 500 company and one of the largest healthcare organizations in the United States, Joyner is a figure of significant public interest. Leadership in a company that directly impacts millions through its healthcare services and retail operations qualifies for notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons. 2. Corporate Leadership and Influence CVS Health plays a critical role in the healthcare industry, especially in pharmacy services, retail healthcare, and health insurance through Aetna. The decisions made under Joyner's leadership have far-reaching impacts on healthcare policies and public health. 3. Documenting Professional Contributions If Joyner has implemented innovative strategies, expanded access to healthcare, or spearheaded notable initiatives, these contributions deserve to be documented for public knowledge and historical context. 4. Precedent for Similar Profiles Wikipedia hosts profiles for CEOs of other major corporations, establishing a precedent. Deleting Joyner's page would diverge from this practice unless specific criteria for deletion are met. 5. Educational Value The page provides information about leadership in the corporate world and insights into how executives shape industries. This could be valuable to students, researchers, and professionals in related fields. 6. Transparency and Accountability Public documentation of corporate leaders fosters transparency, allowing people to better understand who is influencing large-scale healthcare decisions. Magnumchaos (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See justification above from other users. FlaLibrarian (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And should add information about CVS removing executive photos from their website. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/healthcare-industry-rethinks-risk-after-murder-unitedhealth-exec-2024-12-05/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamherbertrichardson (talk • contribs) 20:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a stub but that's not the same thing as not being noteworthy. CallMeSalticidae (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extraordinarily bad faith deletion nomination given the timing. Equally bad faith are the trivial and nonsensical "reasons" given for the deletion nomination. The article suddenly fails WP:NBIO? The prose suddenly reads like a press release? Now, of all times, this nonsense is going to crawl out of the woodwork? Discipline should be administered here. Tuh22823 (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In contrast to TheTechnician27's post, Joyner was covered by various industry and national news publications for his work at CVS, including his strategic decisions at Aetna and CVS and the controversy about his congressional testimony. HorseDonkey (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ErrorCorrection1 and GeorgiaHuman. Azkaiix (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per ErrorCorrection1 and moreso GeorgiaHuman, but also by the very nature of being a CEO/president of a multibillion dollar corporation, he is notable. I also find that anon 77.103.87.249 relates the importance of wikipedia being an unbiased "middleman" resource, but I think that those who are accusing others of some conspiracy should temper their expectations. The article is lacking and it is good to keep wikipedia uncensored and impartial, but we should not jump to conclusions (à la what JPxG has said). Chrisblammo123 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with CVS Health. Just being a businessperson does not necessarily qualify you as notable, as others have said, and the coverage in the article's sources does not appear to be as in-depth as I think would make him notable enough for his own article. If he becomes more noteworthy in the future, the article can always be restored. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to note that previous CEOs of this company do not have their own articles and I do not see what makes this guy so exceptional that he should have one. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous CEOs of CVS do have their own articles. Karen Lynch, Larry Merlo, Tom Ryan HorseDonkey (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I disagree. Joyner has notable contributions outside his tenure as a CVS executive. These are spoken to directly in the article and have no place as subtext in the CVS Health entry. Anameanamewhatsinaname (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal put forward by user:archimedes157 Mfernflower (talk) Mfernflower (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is a public figure and has plenty of good sourcing; we are not a PR department for CVS Health, nor are we their safety department, and the sourcing is solid and there; I do understand that this AfD is now getting Twitter publicity, but even discounting anyone coming from there this is still a pretty broad WP:SNOWBALL. Nate • (chatter) 21:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources, passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 21:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i beleive this article should be expanded and photos should be included, the ceo of one of the largest health organizations should not be a stub--thewillmorgs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.166.251.109 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel like some people here are jumping the gun, and accusing the nominator of trying to protect a billionaire. Go back to the article as it was when it was nominated (Special:PermanentLink/1261253554); it only had 3 sentences. So, if anything, this nomination brough attention to the article so it could be improved, and consequently not deleted! All's well that ends well. — Avelludo (Talk / Contribs / Log) 22:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in awe in the quantity of assuming bad faith here. Like yeah it had 3 sentences... Half of the people here should get reprimands. WP:AGF, folks. win8x (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the proposer's comments, Joyner does have substantial media coverage—more so than much created from here, for instance. It is also likely that he will gain more coverage in the future, given his position; while this is not a reason to keep, it is a reason not to delete where there is already a fair number of sources on him. He is also talked about in a manner distinct from personifying CVS; thus, unlike Archimedes157's proposal, his biography should not be merged with the article on the company. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly the broad consensus is keep. The page has been greatly expanded today. It shows there is widespread media coverage. Hard to argue anything else except that he is notable, worthy of this page being kept. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: above commenters have provided plenty of coverage to justify keeping this article up. jeschaton (immanentize) 22:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep ditto, no reason for this to be removed, even if the article could be improved. Sontails1234 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The consensus is very clear, there is no good reason why this should be deleted. The subject is a public figure and the article has good sources. ~tayanaru (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, which by definition makes him one of the most influential and powerful people on the planet! Faulty (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: per other commenters and WP:SNOW. This is obviously an insane attempt to censor Wikipedia. –DMartin 01:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is not as clear cut as some people seem to think and some of the conspiracy theorists are definitely showing their arses here. Nonetheless, I do think it is just about over the line for notability. The nomination seems to be rooted in WP:BLP1E but his appointment as CEO and his fractious testimony before a House committee are two separate and significant things. The Aetna thing doesn't add much but, even so, BLP2E, or rather the lack of it, applies. That said, I'd also like to defend the nominator from undue aspersions. The version that was nominated was much less complete than what we have now and it certainly did look extremely deletable. I could easily have made the same mistaken decision myself. (Full disclosure: I became aware of this AfD when I saw people talking about it on Bluesky and thought I should find out what was really going on.) --DanielRigal (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people keep bringing up BLP1E, but I don't think it really applies here. They're notable for being CEO, which is hardly a single event. William M. Brown has an article, despite not being notable before becoming CEO of 3M, nor was Stephen Squeri before becoming CEO of American Express, nor was Jonathan Brash before becoming an MP. Being the holder of the office is the thing that makes them notable. –DMartin 02:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no way to speculate on the nominator's motivation, but in my opinion the article (as of the time I'm writing this) is more than sufficient to keep. Not entirely sure if WP:Speedy keep is relevant here, but at this point the results of this discussion appear to be leaning in a WP:SNOW direction.Andrew11374265 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The original argument made for deletion falls apart even with just the article in its current state. I understand that often with faceless businesspeople it can be difficult to ascribe them notability when the only outlets that describe them do so in the same manner with little basis for even a short biography, but evidently this is not the case with Joyner. His heading of the company has intersected him into the realm of politics, in which he has been specifically named by a congressperson as described in the current revision. He has multiple points of notability for different reasons, and the sources listed above only serve as an addition to what that biography could look like. Rman41 (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted, as it violates no policy and contains no reason for deletion. The only presumable reason I could find would be that Joyner doesn't want the article (and his job) to be public knowledge, and, as the Biographies of Living Persons page clearly states: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."Emphasis on the last sentence after the dash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.225.71 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

/thread 2001:18C0:71F:6700:DFB8:92A1:9B8C:654B (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2024 (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 03:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ozenic, Virginia

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

Tagged as unsourced since 2022; there's a GNIS external link but this place name has apparently been purged from GNIS. This isn't an "unincorporated community", this was a village of the Powhatan confederacy, situated in 1608 on Chickahominy r. in New Kent co., Va. per this. This states that it was the closest out of a set of villages to the James River.

I can find nothing that provides further details. While I am sympathetic to the notability of extinct native settlements, the sum source of knowledge of this source is that somebody wrote in 1608 that this place existed. This would be WP:UNDUE weight to mention at the Powhatan article. Any further sourcing would be from 400+ years ago in an extinct language and almost certainly no longer exists. There's just nothing to say about this place other than that it existed in 1608, and I don't think that's sufficient basis for an article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No information found anywhere other than the sources given by nom, and no information to merge. Unlikely search term. Anyway, the artice was created as an informationless GNIS-dump, not as an attempt to document Powhatan settlements, and is flatly incorrect in calling this an "unincorporated community", so I'm comfortable with a delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. This is certainly not a currently existing community, nor is there any notability rationale presented in the article. TH1980 (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With over 2,000 pages in Category:Unincorporated communities in Virginia, the majority of which like this one machine- or bulk-created 16 years ago with no expansion since, I recommend a bulk deletion of such non-notable places made by this user. I commend Hog Farm for his research that the creator didn't do, but there are hundreds and hundreds like this one, names simply lifted from a map to a database and then lifted to be articles that do not meet our notability standards, if not outright incorrect. Reywas92^Talk 05:09, 10 December 2024 (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 03:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claytonville, Virginia

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

Unsourced since creation in 2006. This is on the USGS topos and surely exists, but I can't find any coverage that would indicate a WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG pass. No mentions in a 1914 county history, nor in a 2011 History Press book about the county. Another recent county history contains one reference to "Clayton's Store", but no Claytonville. Newspapers.com has Claytonville Farm as a historic home/garden open for tour, but the other results in VA papers are for sites elsewhere and a description of the plot of a high school play put on in the late 1930s. I'm not seeing anything that would provide the basis for an article on this subject. Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: USGS topo maps show a church and cemetery at the site, plus several buildings, at least as far back as 1938: [75]. This would normally be enough to suggest sources exist, but I can't find any, apart from a single appearance on a map in an Arcadia Publishing book. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything substantial that would grant this community a notable status beyond a local one. TH1980 (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With over 2,000 pages in Category:Unincorporated communities in Virginia, the majority of which like this one machine- or bulk-created 16 years ago with no expansion since, I recommend a bulk deletion of such non-notable places made by this user. I commend Hog Farm for his research that the creator didn't do, but there are hundreds and hundreds like this one, names simply lifted from a map to a database and then lifted to be articles that do not meet our notability standards, if not outright incorrect. Reywas92^Talk 05:09, 10 December 2024 (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!} 04:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Zakharov

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Sources I found, at least in English, are just routine match coverage. I am not familiar with the Russian language at all so if anyone can find anything of note in Russian, I am glad to reconsider. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is one of the famous athletes and is mentioned in more than 30 en:Wikipedia articles. He became a quarterfinalist of junior Grand Slam tournaments four times. In total, he participated in 12 junior Grand Slam tournaments and is accordingly mentioned in articles about these tournaments. He became the winner of ten ITF junior tournaments (2 in singles), reaching 12th place in the ITF World Junior ranking (2018). During 2024, he was a finalist once and quarter finalists twice on the ATP Challenger Tour - see: 2024 ATP Challenger Tour. It is the eighth of the rooms in Top Russian male singles tennis players. --Zboris (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more content and citations to this article (one in English and two in Dutch). Not sure if that makes it now meet the required criteria for significant coverage but thought I'd point it out. I'll let others with more intricate knowledge of the required standards decide if the subject of the article meets the required notability. Shrug02 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - FYI this is already on the Russian language Wikipedia. I think it's the same except in that this one is English. I'm willing to accept good faith on the Russian sourcing, and this English version otherwise looks good to me. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2024 (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 03:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L'ultima volta

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

Fails WP:NSONG, the single did not charted nor received significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing significant found in my WP:BEFORE. The Rockol ref is pointless. The other two sources' coverage amount to L’EP “SARAH“ conterrà, inoltre, la versione live di Voilà ('The ‘SARAH’ EP will also contain the live version of Voilà') and L’ultima volta è un singolo di Sarah Toscano contenuto nell’ep Sarah. ('L'ultima volta is a single by Sarah Toscano contained in the EP Sarah.') Also, the Cliccando News website is of questionable reliability and its article seems AI-generated. Cavarrone 01:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Italy. Cavarrone 01:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to fail WP:NSONG. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2024 (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.

Clickwheel

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted before in 2006, still doesn't seem to meet GNG. Though I don't want this to be deleted either, I think this needs to be. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:36, 28 November 2024 (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 00:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything about these guys online. Definitely falls under WP:NARTIST. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing in the article looks good. And, I am able to find plenty more sources online. Wired has covered this in 2008 at https://www.wired.com/2008/08/comic-books-on/ and in 2009 at https://www.wired.com/2009/05/the-premier-edition-of-the-geekdad-stack-comics-for-your-kids-you/ Meets WP:GNG. Asparagusstar (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced as is and per Asparagusstar newly found sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Savary

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

Non-notable figure skater; does not even come close to meeting the criteria of WP:NSKATE. Includes two local publications; I'll let the community decide whether that qualifies as "significant coverage." Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Delaware. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:34, 28 November 2024 (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 00:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: It is important to keep in mind that more sources exist than are present in the articles. SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV JTtheOG (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Juglares del Dexas

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous discussion was closed for soft deletion, however, the reason it was restored was due to the previous nominator being a sock of a banned user. While being an NPP, I stumbled upon this article. Sadly, a quick search revealed little that would contribute to notability. Hence, I think it should be deleted. Tavantius (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Latin America. Tavantius (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2024 (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 00:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article without significant coverage or reliable reference citations. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say this lacks in-depth WP:SIGCOV in terms of its sources. The sources it does use mostly originate from the same publication, which as you've mentioned have an author related to the label, making them unreliable.--Tgvarrt (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2024 (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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Stauffer}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Stauffer}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Čapljina}}<!--Relisted-->