Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 31	February 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feyzullah Aktürk

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

Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass GNG, and doesn't meet NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a sportsperson only having achieved in junior level. I more than welcome the article back when the subject has achieved in the senior World Championships. Geschichte (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Success at the junior level is not sufficient to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:MANOTE. I think there's a good chance he'll have success at the adult level and can have an article then, but right now that requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Screw the SNG, this individual meets the GNG. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that he didn't anyways? This source of Milliyet and this one of Fanatik, both reliable, independent and significant and about different things, were already in the article before nomination. In addition to that I found another source of Fanatik, another one by Milliyet, this piece by Habertürk and this article by TRT. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting that consists solely of sports results and an article about the state of Turkish wrestling do not constitute significant coverage of this particular individual. Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does, if the individual is a major part of the articles.

Delete. The sources provided in the article and AfD are routine and not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom, and users Geschichte, Papaursa, and JoelleJay. Screwing GNG would likely fall under "Arguments to avoid". The five points of GNG are inclusive and not discretionary and help determine if a subject has passing or lasting and sustained coverage. A BLP needs more than fan coverage and sports scores. Also, multiple use of the same sources count as one towards notability. It is likely just too soon unless there is more independent coverage out there than I could find. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG though lack of significant coverage; I agree with the source assessment table. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www-milliyet-com-tr.translate.goog/skorer/feyzullah-akturkten-altin-madalya-2886462?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp	Routine youth sports reporting: "According to the statement made by the Turkish Wrestling Federation, 97 kilosFeyzullah Akturk, defeated Moldovan Radu Lefter by pin and became the owner of the gold medal."	✘ No
https://www-fanatik-com-tr.translate.goog/feyzullah-akturkten-bronz-madalya-2082184?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp	Routine youth sports reporting: "National athlete Feyzullah Aktürk won the bronze medal in the men's freestyle 97 kilos at the World Youth Wrestling Championship. The national wrestler won the bronze medal by defeating his Chinese rival Reheman Rusidanmu, who came from repechage after his US and Ukrainian rivals, with the point key (11-1)."	✘ No
https://www-fanatik-com-tr.translate.goog/feyzullah-akturk-bronz-madalya-icin-yarisacak-2012461?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp	Routine youth sports reporting: "In the World Youth Wrestling Championship, national athlete Feyzullah Aktürk won the bronze medal match. At the World Junior Wrestling Championship held in Slovakia, national athlete Feyzullah Aktürk won the bronze medal match. Feyzullah Aktürk lost his chance to play for the gold medal by losing to Russian Magomedkhan Magomedov in the semi-final match of 97 kg. The national athlete will face his opponent from the repechage in the third place match."	✘ No
https://www.milliyet.com.tr/skorer/feyzullah-akturk-dunya-ucuncusu-oldu-2495473	Routine youth sports reporting: "National wrestler Feyzullah Aktürk, who hit the mat at 120 kg, defeated Bulgarian rival Daniel Milanov Veselinov 3-0 in his first match, and lost 3-1 to Iranian Naeiim Rahim Hassanzadeh in the quarterfinals. Playing in the repechage match after his opponent made it to the final, the national athlete won the bronze medal by defeating Polish Jakub Brylewski 2-0 and in the fight for third place, Mongolia's Erdenetulga Davaadorj 3-0."	✘ No
https://www.haberturk.com/kahramanmaras-haberleri/93079462-turkiye-serbest-gures-sampiyonasi-sona-erdiagir-siklette-feyzullah-akturk-altin-madalyanin	Routine sports reporting: " In the heavyweight division, Feyzullah Aktürk won the gold medal in the 92 kilograms category,"	✘ No
https://www-trtspor-com-tr.translate.goog/haber/diger-sporlar/gures/akturk-lapsekide-ciceklerle-karsilandi-246678.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp	4 sentences about his winning a medal and being congratulated by a mayor, plus a quote from the mayor.	✘ No
https://www.haberler.com/kirkpinar-baspehlivanlarindan-feyzullah-akturk-14263866-haberi/	4 sentences about his winning a medal and being congratulated by a mayor, plus a quote from the mayor.	✘ No
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/sports/turkey-wins-1-gold-7-bronze-in-junior-world-wrestling/1559245	Name listed among others	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Coverage is exclusively routine and offers nothing in any depth (or even anything more than 4-5 brief sentences reporting match results). Fails GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG though lack of significant coverage as per the source assessment table above. Cassiopeia talk 05:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't really like these source assessment tables. Just because something is presented more elaborately, it doesn't make it true. The only point that the table makes is that the coverage of this person in RS is WP:ROUTINE, but there is no actual argument to back up this assertion - no, providing quotes doesn't make this an argument and just the fact that scores are reported doesn't mean that this is routine coverage. In fact, I would say that the coverage is explicitly non-routine e.g. looking at Milliyet's coverage of the World Junior Wrestling Championships, we see that they do not routinely report on this event, but only choose to report when there is a notable accomplishment by a Turkish national. The coverage is not there because Milliyet routinely reports on this tournament, it is there because Aktürk had a newsworthy accomplishment. This is the case for all the other news articles, and it is possible to weave together a decent, well-sourced biography using these sources. Remember that WP:ROUTINE covers "Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it" - I don't see evidence of such planned coverage here. I also fail to see how these articles don't meet WP:SIGCOV - there is clearly no need for original research to extract information about the individual, and there is definitely more than a trivial mention of the person in these articles; his accomplishments are the main focus. I am also easily able to find other sources e.g. [1] - note that Aktürk won the Kırkpınar Wrestling Tournanment (which has been held for over 600 years) and earned the title of başpehlivan, which is the most prestigious title in Turkish wrestling. I know this isn't in NSPORTS (although I don't truly see a difference from e.g. College Football Hall of Fame), but it does indicate that further sources are highly likely to be found. --GGT (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your giving such a thorough response. The quoted text in the table constitutes the entirety of the text on Akturk in a source, not just a snippet of it, and in most of the articles his performance is mentioned alongside that of all other Turkish competitors. SIGCOV is not achieved with three-sentence tournament recaps, and certainly not with the single sentence on him in Millyet (this is especially true for media coverage of youth athletics, which have stricter notability requirements). The Haberturk article you linked is syndicated ("All Çanakkale news, which is covered by Anadolu Agency, DHA, İHA, is included in this section as it comes automatically from the agency channels, without any editorial intervention by Haberturk.com editors") from the same İHA source as the penultimate two sources in the table. It is local routine signing coverage, and the lack of a byline additionally suggests it is a press release (other AA/İHA articles name the author). Syndicated articles are not intellectually independent of each other; a local paper changing the original news agency headline to highlight a local athlete's performance doesn't suddenly make the coverage non-routine or make him the main focus of an article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a detailed reply. The bottom line regarding SIGCOV is that there is no need for original research to extract the content from the article and that it is a non-trivial mention. WP:SIGCOV explicitly states that we are not looking for him to be the main focus of the article - we're definitely not expecting a biographical treatise, and there is no arbitrary cutoff for the number of sentences needed to count as SIGCOV. Of course I'm not denying the brevity of the coverage in each individual source, but there is enough of it across various sources to weave together a good biography without any original research, entirely based upon reliable and independent sources - and that's all we need to clear GNG. Sports articles by Turkish news agencies do not regularly feature author names, so I disagree that this suggests that it is a press release in this instance; on the other hand, it does indicate a judgement of newsworthiness by a national news agency. Local wrestling signups aren't usually picked up by national news agencies as far as I can tell. I should finally note that I'm not too comfortable with the liberal use of copyrighted quotes in this discussion. They're not necessary to make the point and the amount quoted for some articles constitutes a rather significant part of the original work. I'm not convinced that these quotes can be regarded as fair use, so I suggest that you remove them. --GGT (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, I realize there is a lot of interpretation as to what SIGCOV means, and I think it's helpful to look at it in the context of the NSPORT guidelines as well as the consensus across other athlete AfDs. Firstly, it is extremely difficult for youth competitors to meet NSPORT, particularly because achievements at the youth level are almost never considered encyclopedic (else we would have articles on every Little League World Series player right off the bat _sorry). Nothing beyond brief mentions of his final results would be WP:DUE in an article on Akturk, not that there was much more info on him in any of the news reports anyway. And, per WP:YOUNGATH, NONE of those sources could contribute to notability: High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage... The second clause... especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability (emphasis mine).

Secondly, there are millions of people who do not meet any sport-specific notability guideline (SSG) but DO appear in a tremendous number of signing/transfer/draft/injury articles. If this was sufficient for SIGCOV the criterion for meeting basically every SSG would be "college athlete, or varsity HS athlete at a highly-ranked institution". But the community has come to the consensus that such material is not SIGCOV, and that is why sports scores (which is exactly what the first 5 sources are; they are strictly relaying the match outcomes announced to press agencies by the Turkish Wrestling Federation) are explicitly mentioned in WP:ROUTINE.

Regarding the AA agency link you provided, both the article and its picture are bylined: Suha Gur and Serhat Çağdaş, respectively. National news agencies have local chapters where material of local interest is reported, often directly from PR groups ; the IHA article on Akturk meeting a mayor is specifically curated in "Local News -- Canakkale", alongside an announcement that the president of a regional amateur sports league was reelected as its chairman and a report of someone being detained for growing marijuana (with a picture of the seized goods and adorable "[s]ensitive-nosed drug-seeking dog 'Roket'"). JoelleJay (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as some others have said, Junior level is not enough. He can have an article once he has made his name at the Senior level championships.-Imcdc (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Today he won 2022 European Wrestling Championships, senior level, and ı don t understand what is ur problems with wrestler pages?

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. I contemplated relisting this, but am comfortable closing this as soft since it's the article's creator requesting review, and there are no substantive additions from other editors. Could also be considered a G7 Star Mississippi 20:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo Schiffman

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

I created this article almost a year ago, when I didn't know about notability requirements. After looking over this article again, it appears that they do not meet the requirements, with only a few minor roles. Wgullyn (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wgullyn (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Wgullyn (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Geschichte (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest wilderness areas in the United States

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

Complete content fork with List of wilderness areas in the United States. The complete list is able to be sorted by size, providing the same information. Suggest blanking and redirecting to the parent list. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Obvious duplicate hardly needs discussion. Reywas92^Talk 01:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as they page does not add any value.Gusfriend (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Nothing new compared to the mentioned article. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per Reywas. Femke (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gli family zinc finger 4

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

Reason Telefocus (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Article is not noteworthy.[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Although the topic appears technical to most readers, Category:Genes on human chromosome 8 has 455 categories. No reason has been given to single out only 1. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without taking a position on this particular article, this is not a valid procedural keep rationale, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's possible that if this one IS agreed on for deletion that this could be the test case for nuking the other 454. PianoDan (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, since the nominator has not stated the intent of it being a test nomination. The notion that other users should infer what the nominator "possibly" has meant, is not valid. Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but definitely warranting the stub status.Gusfriend (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more editing and fixes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TzarN64 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a broader conversation than what is present here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's no reason for deletion, so I wish we knew what the nominator saw is at fault here. This singular article seems fine from my perspective; however, if there is a wish to look at these gene article holistically, I would not be opposed. Curbon7 (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Weak keep is keep. Tone 16:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay–Vietnam relations

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

Previously deleted. Fails WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage. 3 of the 6 sources merely confirm embassies (or non resident embassy). The fact that Uruguay sells beef to Vietnam is hardly noteworthy given Uruguay sells beef worldwide. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the page as it stands is useless. The previous version also said "In November 2007, Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez visited Vietnam". Geschichte (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I found additional sources [2], [3]. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth noting that even where a country has been identified as a priority for another state's foreign relations, these types of articles are being deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spain–Tanzania relations. The simple existence alone of normalised diplomatic and trade relations cannot itself be grounds for an article; given that Vietnam accredits their Argentine representative, while Uruguay has a resident representative, as an ATD redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Uruguay, otherwise delete. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a cursory search in Spanish had shown quite a bit of coverage in Uruguayan and Vietnamese that in my opinion satisfy WP:GNG, although I want to check if there are more. I will be posting those here in a bit. Pilaz (talk)
- Establishment of diplomatic relations in 1993, celebrations and ROTM diplomatic stuff: [4], [5], [6], [7]; 2012 Uruguay-Vietnam framework cooperation agreement [8]; Uruguayan president promising to visit Vietnam in 2014 [9], [10], [11]. A lot of bilateral discussions on a potential free trade agreement between the two countries in 2021 [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. I don't think I'm going to weigh on this yet, but there are also other sources and bilateral official visits out there. Will try to look into them later today. Pilaz (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep (in between Weak Keep and Keep) - there were some other visits, like the MFA of Uruguay to Hanoi in 2010, the visit of the deputy PM of Vietnam to Montevideo [17], a 2014 scientific agreement [18], a trade and investment agreement in 2016 [19], so I think an encyclopedic version of it all could have its place in the encyclopedia. I think that should be enough for a start-class article. There was also a study that I read while browsing that covered Latin America-Vietnam relations and had two paragraphs about the Vietnam-Uruguay relation, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. Not seeing presidential visits, though, and that's why I'm only lean keep. On the economic front, we're well over the keep mark, though. Pilaz (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paperboy Prince

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

Fails WP:GNG WP:POLITICIAN WP:MUSICBIO Yousef Raz (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing coverage well beyond what one would expect from a losing politician, including significant coverage in The New Yorker, Business Insider, Rolling Stone, and Washington Post. Mlb96 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note @Mlb96 Each of those articles are about the subject's mayoral candidacy. The subject's candidacy received 0.4% of the votes. The WaPo article is about mayoral race with brief mentions of the subject. This level of coverage is expected and consistent with the other NYC mayor candidates for Democrat primary 2021.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets WP:GNG. “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,”. I do not know what else we are looking for here. Whatever it was that the made journos write about him is none of our concern as editors as far as he passes the criteria, there’s no need to sweat this out. And please, don’t try to convince me to change my mind, we’re not trying to get the winner or loser here. Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans}
Delete Incidental coverage of a person in connection with an election is not enough to show notability. Almost all candidates get some coverage, but this coverage is not enough to make us have to create articles on every person who runs for public office and gets coverage for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google news search brings up multiple reliable and independent sources writing about them. He therefore meets the inclusion criteria. CT55555 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Which could be said for almost any candidate for public office above a certain level. Unelected candidates need to do more than just pass the minimum of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you agreeing that he meets the GNG? You think he needs to do something more than that? It seems you're moving the argument to why he meets the GNG, whereas I'm just sticking to the point of if he meets it. CT55555 (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets Notability Guidelines. I've read a few articles about them recently. Came here for more background and was quite shocked to see there was any question at all about their notability. J. Van Meter (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note @User:J. Van Meter He's a minor part of a New York City Mayoral Democrat primary. Its consistent with WP:ONEEVENT. Every person that ever runs in a New York City mayor Democrat Primary will likely get a news article about them.Yousef Raz (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note Yousef Raz, please use the correct pronouns (they/them) when referring to the subject of the article.Sevey13 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, which is sufficient. I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies here as they appear to also be notable for their music career. NemesisAT (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @NemesisAT:You think they're music qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO?Yousef Raz (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't need to, so long as they meet WP:GNG. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @NemesisAT: Then why have a separate article defining notability specifically for musicians?Yousef Raz (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems pretty clear their biography passes the notability guidelines given the sourcing present. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even the current citations in the article demonstrate a wide variety of coverage over a sustained period of time.Sevey13 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this point, the chances of this article being deleted are equivalent to a snowball's chance. User:Yousef Raz I encourage you to withdraw this AfD as per WP:SNOW CT55555 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @CT55555: I'll wait for the process to complete.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The sources do seem reliable enough and the subject seems to have coverage in both music and politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of good citations provided. Caphadouk (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources to show that this entry is notable. Historyday01 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kulu Abdullahi Sifawa

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

Mid-level Nigerian bureaucrat lacking in sources about her specifically, so WP:GNG isn't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sifawa holds a state-level office so meets notability requirements under NPOL.Furius (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep *Not* a "mid-level Nigerian bureaucrat". Sifawa is the Commissioner for Women and Children Affairs. Commissioners of Nigerian state governments are a constitutionally-defined position (s.192, 1999 Constitution) which may only be appointed following approval of the State House Assembly. This is clearly within the ambit of WP:NPOL as holding a state-wide office. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Ahmad Maqari

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. The subject has no significant coverage in sources cited in the article, as well as few other I checked which are not cited. Multiple paragraphs uncited, and WP:Citation overkill just for the statement: "He is the present Imam of the National Mosque Abuja, he's always straddling between Abuja, Zaria and Kano on a weekly basis." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Kavyansh.Singh
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bbc.com/hausa/labarai-55932475	Per WP:RS/PS#BBC	Per WP:RS/PS#BBC	unable to judge due to the article being in a foreign language	? Unknown
https://sheikhmaqary.com.ng/e-books	apparently a self published website	looks like someone's personal website	merely some pdfs of books	✘ No
https://www.abujanationalmosque.org/management/	primary source, website of the Mosque		I don't see a single mention of "Ibrahim Maqari"	✘ No
https://www.blueprint.ng/appoint-chief-imam-for-national-mosque-abuja/	media outlet with independent coverage		just one passing mention	✘ No
https://dailytrust.com/time-to-appoint-chief-imam-for-national-mosque	media outlet with independent coverage		passing mentions	✘ No
https://www.legit.ng/1414305-paying-ransom-kidnappers-permitted-islam-islamic-cleric.html		not sure	passing mentions, merely using Maqari's statements does not make his notable.	✘ No
https://dailynigerian.com/hausa/saudiyya-ce-ke-horas-da-yan-taadda-babban-limamin-abuja/	media outlet with independent coverage		one passing mention	✘ No
https://hausa.legit.ng/1426412-abduljabbar-sheikh-maqary-ya-yi-karin-haske-bayan-wasu-kalamansa-sun-tada-kura.html		not sure		? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is also so poorly written from a grammatical perspective that it's an embarrassment and detraction to Wikipedia. Ira Leviton (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Because the grammatical perspective were fixed and furthermore English is not our native language! We're all here to give our contributions best on our little knowledge. Nobody is perfect, so I think that's the advantage of everyone can edit Wikipedia pages as far as he had created an account and has the ability to do so with the wiki rules. Ira Leviton you can help us and fixed some grammatical errors. thank you all Salihu Aliyu (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Salihu Aliyu, I agree that prose and grammar issues should not be a reason for deleting an article. At AfD, we determine notability. But, if the topic is not notable, then no level of editing can make it notable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes I agree, grammar issues are not a reason to deleta an article, if it is otherwise noteworthy. Grammar can be fixed. However, the analysis of the RS here seems to indicate it isn't notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kulu Bay Resort

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

Wikipedia is not for self-WP:PROMOTION. I don't see any independent writeups of the place. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have marked as speedy delete. Blatant WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it looks like an advertisement.
Delete because Wikipedia is not for self promotion.ThePremiumBoy (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and blatant WP:PROMO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. albeit weakly. There is no consensus to delete this. Star Mississippi 01:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mickolus

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

No indication in the article or in searches that this article passes WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. All references are lacking in either significance, independence, or reliability. Also violates WP:NOTRESUME. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This looks like a good faith 2011 contribution by now blocked User:Geo Swan. This diff shows the insertion of all the resume info in 2018 by the subject themself. No opinion about the outcome here. BusterD (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep So I came across this article in the references section of Hassan Al-Turabi's article. I think it helps show that it's a good source for the article, but other than that, I can't think of any other reason why he'd count as notable. However, I posted on the talk page and noticeboard specifically without mentioning article deletion since I disagree with Wikipedia's notability guidelines in general, but if it violates them, then there's not much else to do other than removal. Seabass715 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Seabass715.[reply]
Weak keep? There may be a weak pass of WP:AUTHOR, but the BLP contains a vast amount of dross that should be deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Marquis Who's Who doesn't count though and other sources briefly discuss him. But I found some book reviews so inclined towards keep. Coverage: [20], [21], [22]. 67.168.136.107 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (I suspect this is a SNOW keep.) This is a strange keep, given that it comes from the person who completed the nomination (noticing a redlink on February 1's AfD listing and a tag on the associated page), but it is abundantly clear that the subject passes NPROF and the GNG, and further sourcing was fairly easy to come across. Additionally, the comments made by the Yale IP indicate that the underlying deletion nomination was intended as a BLPREQUESTDELETE that, given the circumstances, is being done in bad faith, and given the references, is being requested by a public enough figure (or someone with a connection to him) that the subsection is not applicable. There is a worthy discussion on how much the negative elements with the available sources can/should be discussed while meeting our various BLP policies and guidelines, but that is for the talk page, not Articles for deletion. I will be starting a section header at the talk page and pinging the participants in this deletion discussion there for further handling of the matter. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto González Echevarría

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

Completing a nomination for IP nominator 130.132.173.30. No reason was given, but this editor then removed a section with the edit summary Contentious material about the living person named in this article is poorly sourced (blog) and libellous. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some background: The "contentious material" section covered a sexual harassment allegation from 2017. See the removal diff. The main source cited in the paragraph is the Yale Daily News. The case was approved to go to trial in April 2020 ([23]) and it got written up in Law.com at the time the allegations surfaced in 2017 ([24]). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the IP geolocates to Yale University, where the subject taught. The IP left a comment at User talk:GB fan reading, You are a previous editor of the Roberto González Echevarría page. González Echevarría would like the entire page removed from this cite. Would you be able to do that? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the Yale Daily News url has "blog" as part of it, all the stories on the front page appear to direct to similar urls, and these otherwise appear to be normal Yale Daily News pieces. I think they are as reliable as student newspaper sources usually are. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is my assessment as well, likely a CMS item. The more I look at this, the more I see this as not a matter for AfD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF criterion 5. Regarding whether to include the allegations, that's beyond the scope of this AfD, but as this is where attention is, I'll weigh in. It's tricky. WP:BLPCRIME states that for non-public figures (which would include a professor) editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Weighing against that is the fact that the allegations appear strongly substantiated, that the Yale Daily News is one of the most respected student newspapers in the U.S. and therefore very much a reliable source for Yale-related topics per WP:RSSM, and that it appears likely someone with a conflict of interest is trying to tamper with the article (which would nullify WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE considerations for me). I'd be alright seeing this go either way, but at the very least, we can include in the article the aspects that aren't strictly legal. I've done that here. (As disclosure, I came to this AfD through a generally neutral but conversational invitation on WP:DISCORD.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I give some consideration to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, I think that the notability here is unambiguous: he passes WP:NPROF C5, also WP:NPROF C3 multiple times over, and the citation record (in a low-citation field) looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1. He's fairly widely quoted on Cuba-related issues. A casual search of JSTOR turns up lots of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. Comment that basic personal details can probably be sourced to a Yale Alumni Magazine piece [25]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be notable under the GNG from the articles revealed by Google News, which goes beyond NPROF. The Miami Herald feature plus the consistent coverage by RS going to him for quotes on his field of expertise is more than the usual academic. It might even make him a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would not be surprised if the IP who refers to the prof in the third-person is in fact the prof himself. Notability is well-demonstrated for reasons already given. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Notability is not marginal so BLP1E does not apply. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Well sourced. Needs the stuff pulled from the page history, also work to bring text up to standard. Closing admin: feel free to ping me to do this work if kept. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin Maxey

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

Fails WP:GNG. Surprised this article has existed since 2008 given obvious WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:PROMO issues. KidAd • SPEAK 20:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You don't get to write an article on yourself, sad that this self-promotion has persisted. Reywas92^Talk 22:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People should not create articles on themselves in Wikipedia. This is one of the reasons we really should go to making all new articles go through the AfC process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does seem to have been created by the person themselves. Counts as self promotion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Page should have been restored to my user area as requested. I have moved it there and will not resubmit it until I have found more and better sources. . (non-admin closure) Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letha Weapons

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

I've done some searching and while there are a number of passing references, I'm not seeing enough to support an article. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still no significant coverage to justify an article. Just passing mentions, interviews and trivial coverage. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Just a namedrop" is generally a euphemism for "mentioned in an article, but the coverage is slight". Here, the phrase is literal. Several sources are actually just a one-and-done name. In short, the sourcing to support the notability of the subject is nonexistent. Zaathras (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically asked for this to be restored to my sandbox. I have moved it there to work on. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Polycarpa aurata: Deletion review restored the article to main space. Now that it is back at AfD, we should reach consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page should not have been restored to the main space. I will not resubmot the article until I have found more and better sourcing. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2022 (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. While the ideal merger target hasn't been identified, there is consensus to keep the content at a location TBD. That can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Game of Alice in Wonderland

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

I came across this while trying to clean up Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The two sources are dead, as is the link in the attribution template on Talk:The Game of Alice in Wonderland. There is another game, called The New & Diverting Game of Alice in Wonderland, which is probably not notable either but which I see some hits for: [26] [27]. I'd happily be proven wrong here but I don't see a GNG pass. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [28] looks like a probably reliable source. [29] is maybe a bit more than a passing reference. I suspect the (now dead) links in the article may have only a bit more. I'd really prefer not to see this deleted and am hopeful someone can find more. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link led me to [30], which has more pictures but the text is mostly a general comment on Alice and not on the game in particular. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. It seems like some non-notable historical object that sadly did not generate much if any coverage so far. We have one sentence and few pictures here, and the second link seems dead and not saved in the Internet Archive. The book Hobi found has two sentences and I am sorry, it is a passing reference in my book. Ping me if anyone finds new good sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Hobit and Piotrus: I also found the following: "In the U.S. Selchow and Righter produced a trick-taking game in 1882 while in England Thomas de La Rue & Co. created a 'Go Fish' Alice game around 1899. Both versions adapt John Tenniel's original illustrations." That's on page 27 of doi:10.4324/9781351392143. Now that we can verify this game's existence, maybe a merge to Works based on Alice in Wonderland#Games is appropriate? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems like a good solution. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping we can find more, but that's much better than deletion. And we have other RSes, so we are well past WP:V. It's just none of them are hugely in-depth. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been expanded significantly, if that helps. BOZ (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The expansion relies substantially on [31], which I do not consider a WP:RS. I think we've discussed the other sources on this AfD already. [32] is arguably SIGCOV; [33], not so much. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- BGG is clearly not a RS. The other two most certainly seem to be. What objection do you have to the University of Indiana's page on this topic? Hobit (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Indiana's page has only one sentence of prose about the game. The rest is commentary about Carroll/Alice in general and pictures from other editions and Alice memorabilia that Indiana has in its library. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, my bad. I'd read it as claiming it wasn't a RS, but that's not what you said. You clearly were discussing SIGCOV. Sorry, I think I got your first sentence confused with your second. But to that point, I think we have at least 3 sentences.
  A matching game, The Game of Alice in Wonderland consists of 52 cards: twenty cards numbered 1–20, and thirty–two cards, numbered 1–16 in pairs, with images of the Wonderland characters.
  
  Pictured below are images of cards from the game and illustrations from various editions of Alice in Wonderland in the Lilly Library collection.
  
  Curiouser examples of playing cards for the Alice in Wonderland Game

By themselves, not a ton, but with the art included? I'd say we're over the edge of significant coverage. Add to it the fact that the Lily Collection includes this and documents it makes it feel like something we should have here too. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going back and forth. I think I'm at weak keep Two okay sources on an older topic where such sources are harder to find. That said, I think an article, rather than list, on the topics of AiW games might make sense. Hobit (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the first game published about one of the most popular chidren's books in history establishes notability. The search for further sources continues, but it could be that someone will have to go through microfiche rolls of American newspapers of 1882 to find further information. Guinness323 (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being the first X of Y does not make something notable. There has to be significant coverage about it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit and Guinness323, although I would note that if a volunteer has access to Newspapers.com then we don't need to bother with microfiche. :) BOZ (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it up in newspapers.com and I see nothing. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Works based on Alice in Wonderland#Games - BGG is generally not considered a reliable source due to being user generated, and the two other sources are fairly weak in actual information on the game - the Indiana University page, for example, really only has a couple of sentences of actual coverage of the game itself. Its really not enough to sustain an independent article, but should certainly be included in the main article on works based on Alice. Rorshacma (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Things is that I think we should have more than a sentence. Our coverage, should for example, include the art. The proposed target it too broad. But I agree a standalone article seems like too much... Bah. Hobit (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Maria

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

He made a Self-PR. Nor relevant for Wikipedia. No good Sources. --Tromla (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have fixed the formatting on this and added it to 18th Jan AfD list, as it was not live until this point (despite the afd page being created on 15th Jan). I have no opinion on the afd itself. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another weirdly sourced article, where the citations only give the titles of the page they link to. Seems like excessive citations, some seem almost useless. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several articles in German or another language posted on issuu.com which would seem in-depth, but since I cannot read them, I will not be voting. Should someone confirm these articles check out and are in-depth, then I will change my vote to Keep. Chelokabob (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is borderline malpractice. What’s labeled “German National TV“ is a municipal Public-access television station. The six sources for the introduction are mostly dead, the GND link works but does not, and has never, mentioned anything connected to the paragraph. I can definitely say that there is not and was never a ‘cult following’. The Teehaus Open Air is some beer garden’s summer promo event, and the only serious source is the Rheinische Post (mislabeled and typo’ed “Rhur something”. The others are street zines that take whatever contributions they get, the Böblinger something is the artist’s very very local paper doing a local-guy-makes-it-big-in-regional-sub center routine. K. Oblique 18:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wiki article is now deleted. Tromla (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Vikash Secondary School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG The Banner talk 19:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Prior result was no consensus, so a soft delete would not make sense at this stage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Nepal. nirmal (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this school clearly isn't notable. I couldn't even find any trivial information about it. In the meantime I'm not sure redirecting the article is a good option since the target article doesn't contain any information about the school, likely never will, and obviously it doesn't serve any kind of encyclopedic purpose to redirect the name of the school to something that lacks any information about it. So I'm going with delete instead of redirect. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - Hatchens (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea (technical summit)

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertising for a rather recent started series of meetings (started in 2010) by a very recently started university (started 2008). Many sources are not about the summit or are just passing mentions. So besides the advertising, I doubt about notability. Re-created article after normal procedure. The Banner talk 19:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing comes entirely from the event organizers, no independent coverage at all. Anton.bersh (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't clear to me that the sourcing all comes from the event organizers. The references are PDFs that seem to have been downloaded to the IIT Gandhinagar system - perhaps through the library? Some of the articles, like this one state that they are from The Times of India Ahmedabad. That said, I have no idea whether local editions of the Times of India are considered RS. It's also a shame not have to have the original citation in the article (with effort, that perhaps could be done). I do think it would be a good idea to remove unreferenced info, reducing the article to only the facts that can be sourced. Lamona (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the article you linked to provide any useful coverage. For one, it quotes the whole paragraphs from a certain lecture, so it would hardly be considered independent. Secondly, I don't see any coverage of the event in general, just one particular lecture. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I usually vote Delete on techfests but this one was actually covered by quite a number of reliable sources, including several articles in TOI and DNA. Don't get me wrong, it needs a lot of copy-editing, it is promotional and full of trivialities, most of the facts aren't sourced and the ones that are deserve better citation etc. However, notability-wise I think it has decent coverage to remain a short article and I don't think Blow it up and start over is the right solution in this case. --Muhandes (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please specify which sources you consider reliable independent and in-depth? Anton.bersh (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This and this are for sure reliable secondary sources. Together with the rest I think they provide enough coverage to establish notability for a short article. --Muhandes (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete after looking over the references that have been provided I'm of the opinion that there is only extremely trivial, indirect coverage of this tech summit. Like the one from The Times Of India is literally one paragraph in an article about something else that doesn't even discuss the summit because it's about "The Speech Jammer", whatever that is. Whereas, the "DNA article" appears to be a self published promotional puff piece. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete. ✗plicit 04:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ishell Vaughan

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

Possible UPE, created initial with junk SEO blog references, moved to draft but than moved back into mainspace. No visible pass of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. nearlyevil 665 18:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the article doesn't go against the politics of significance. It is as short as possible, no advertising or anything like that. There could be more references, but there are no forbidden black hats here. Just an article about a person. There are works with famous musicians and links to them. Why this article does not belong on Wikipedia I do not understand. Ilyadante (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)ilyadan[reply]

It's unwise to move draft articles on people of questionable notability out of Draft space before they get the Articles for Creation stamp of approval. They are often subject to speedy deletion but here you can argue why this article should be kept and you have some time to improve the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, tried to give the author a chance to improve this in draft. None of the material supports even basic biographical information. I was unable to find anything additional; most hits are PR or blogs. Please note that subjects do not inherent the notability of people they may or may not have worked with. Kuru (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would probably have been wise to leave it in draft and go through AfC, where experienced editors could have helped develop it. But this does smell a bit of UPE/COI editing, so that could be the impetus of forcing it into the mainspace. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG, in-depth coverage in Vocal along with coverage in WRDE, Daily Voice, HotNewHipHop (1st), (2nd), and XXL Magazine. They possibly also pass WP:DIRECTOR bullet 3. Merkedeke (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth: Vocal - User-generated blog. Not reliable; WRDE - dead link. Unable to find original; Daily Voice - unreliable site, also only mention of the subject's name, not SIGCOV; HotNewHipHop - Trivial mention, unreliable blog-like site; XXL Magazine - no SIGCOV, just a promotional-sounding video clip announcement; WP:DIRECTOR bullet 3 - Highly unlikely. nearlyevil 665 17:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no serious third party coverage. Refs read like paid publicity pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is clearly created by a paid author. All sources are paid. Definitely this character should not be on Wikipedia Faskat (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Faskat[reply]

I just found something interesting.^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] Absolutely the same articles, clearly created in order to inflate a character out of nothing. If you look at the original article, it becomes ridiculous, he worked in collaboration with BMW, Lamborgini ... Very funny. If I have Calvin Klein underpants, does that mean I work with Calvin Klein?Faskat (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Faskat[reply]

References

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. RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Darling

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

Subject fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. WP:BEFORE (Newspapers.com and Google Books) turned up nothing for me but minor mentions alongside other artists in a few news articles in Richmond, Virginia. I found nothing specifically about him, or otherwise any significant coverage in WP:RS. The tone of the standing article is promotional as well. If significant coverage of him can be found I'm happy to withdraw the AfD, but I didn't see it. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since no sources that would constitute passing GNG have been identfied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this has existed as an unsourced article for over 13 years is not encouraging. We really need to stop letting articles exist without sources for so long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar to the nominator, I found only minor mentions on Newspapers.com, nothing to sustain an article. There was very little elsewhere. Curiocurio (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete followed by move of the old page to this page and a history undelete. Interested editors should checkmthe content to make sure it is correct . Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block, Inc.

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

This page appears to be a duplicate of the existing Square (financial services company) article. I propose that the article be reverted to the redirect that it was prior to 1 February. Chrisclear (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Square (financial services company)#Splitting proposal for more info DownTownRich (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Square (financial services company) because this is just a duplicate of it. ThePremiumBoy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The company has changed its name. The page should have been moved to the new title instead of copy-pasted at the new title.— Diannaa (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator, I agree with ThePremiumBoy, that Block, Inc. should redirect to Square (financial services company). Chrisclear (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom - DownTownRich (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and then move the Block article to this title, which will leave the redirect around the other direction. W Nowicki (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because it is a duplicate.Fulmard (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc. (and I mean this title) since Square, Inc. has already been renamed to Block, Inc. The article's title should reflect to the company's current name. (EDIT: I mean, Move to this page, but use the old page as a redirect) 20chances (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @20chances: Do you mean (1) Redirect Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc. or (2) Move Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc.? If you are advocating for (1), the outcome is that (a) a lot of content from the Square (financial services company) will be deleted and (b) the page history for the surviving Block, Inc. article will only start in December 2021. Chrisclear (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @Chrisclear: I think I was trying to say is that we should keep all of the Block, Inc. article from Square (financial services company) and rename it to its current name. Hopefully I got the clarification right. Also, I was aware about the consideration from what it should be named. I think I was the first to propose to naming it to Block, Inc. though some have thought of renaming it under "Block (company)". I may consider Block, Inc. though I HAVE used it for an infobox for the company. 20chances (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment @20chances: It sounds like what you are advocating is option (2) from what I wrote above, ie., Move Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc.. While it may sound pedantic, this is quite different to what you wrote previously, which was "Redirect Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc.". If my assumption is correct, would you mind amending your post with the timestamp of 14:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)? Chrisclear (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment @Chrisclear: Yeah, I was trying to get the meaning right but yeah. I got that adjusted And apologies if I forgot the timestamp on the last one. I forgot to mention, as for the naming of the article, are we going for "Block, Inc." or something else? 20chances (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TzarN64 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I agree with the redirect !votes above in principal, it appears this company has indeed changed its name, so this article should be deleted, and then Square (financial services company) should be moved to this title. The page should simply have been returned to a redirect, and then Moved. This is a cut and paste move, and should have been handled without coming to AfD. If an admin takes a look at this I might suggest a speedy close, since this is all housekeeping at this point. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In principal, I agree with most of what you have written. Furthermore, I agree that Square (financial services company) should be moved to Block, Inc., to reflect the name change. However, in practice, that move was proposed on 14 December and (unfortunately) rejected on 21 December. There is also a practical consideration as to what the article should be titled, eg. Block, Inc. or Block (financial services company) or Block (company) or something else. Chrisclear (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - how, User:Chrisclear isn't a duplicate article, always a redirect - which doesn't need an AFD. Nfitz (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Redirect - With the acquisition of Afterpay by Block Inc. closing on 31 January there is now another significant business unit under Block Inc. that is not Square (payment system) and it is time to have Square (financial services company) become a redirect to this page. Is there somewhere that a combined discussion taking into account all of the pages can take place?Gusfriend (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment1 With regards to your last sentence - a discussion is taking place at The talk page for Square (financial services company). Chrisclear (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment2 Regarding your suggestion to "keep" and "have Square (financial services company) become a redirect to this page" would mean that (1) A lot of content from the Square (financial services company) would be deleted, including but not limited to edits made to Square (financial services company) since 1 February, and (2) The history of the Block, Inc. article would only commence in December 2021. I believe that a better solution would be a two-part process. Part 1: redirect Block, Inc. to Square (financial services company), which is covered by this deletion discussion. Part 2: move Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc.. This would ensure that (1) content is not deleted unnecessarily and (2) page history is maintained. Chrisclear (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will make a comment on the talk page of Square (financial services company) that it should be renamed and recommend a redirect, possibly with protection, of this page whilst we are waiting for the page rename.Gusfriend (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copy/paste move. Move the Square article here and perform a history merge if needed to preserve attribution. Star Mississippi 00:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. nomination is vague wave, other delete argument is about current state of article, ignoring potentials sources. On the other hand, the keep arguments posit liklihood of sources plausibly, but I don't think with strong enough evidence for a clear "keep" consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Baldacchino

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

No notability _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 17:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 17:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 17:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks sufficient sources to pass GNG, and no other such sources have been identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- As I read the article he was a (perhaps the) leading archaeologist of Malta of his time. In view of his dates, we should not expect there to be a great deal about him on the Internet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources: a mention in book "sailing to the edge of time", listed in Contemporary Medicine in Malta, mention in Sword of Allah. Articles:

Baldacchino, J.G. and Evans, J.D., 1954. Prehistoric Tombs near Zebbug, Malta. Papers of the British School at Rome, 22, pp.1-21.

Baldacchino, J.G. and Dunbabin, T.J., 1953. Rock Tomb at Ghajn Qajjet, near Rabat, Malta. Papers of the British School at Rome, 21, pp.32-41.

mentioned multiple times in Għar Dalam : a shelter for WWII refugees and military fuel supplies

That's all I could find, but being active in the early-mid 1900's in a country that was considered minor ... well, we need access to more old archeological journals. Lamona (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Usama Nadeem Satti

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

References and web search don't indicate this rises above routine coverage. Star Garnet (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dawn have a full article on it, it's a notable event reported on by credible press. CT55555 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Star Garnet (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - To expand: On a world-scale, the media covers thousands of murders/killings/unnatural deaths at a high level of detail annually. It is not WP's place to compile that information, or even the few hundred that were covered most closely. Wikinews, sure. The four articles I nominated for deletion after browsing through the 30-odd 2021 murder/killing/death of X articles fall short of the others in level of news analysis and impact on outside events (I'm also skeptical of plenty of the others, but I could at least see a competent argument for them meeting at least one of the WP:EVENTCRITERIA). While they certainly received signicant coverage in the media, that is in the form of news reports. We don't have the secondary sources to satisfy SIGCOV. Could this incident gain notability through a book, law, or otherwise? Sure, in the way that some of today's paintings may get articles in 40 years. But until they have gained that secondary coverage, these are WP:NOTMEMORIAL material. Star Garnet (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is not simply a "killing", it is an extra-judicial killing by police/security forces that has provoked a good deal of protest in Pakistan, as well as evidence of a police cover-up. It is also interesting to have this article to compare with similar article concerning police involved killings in other countries. This article has a number of lines of development apparent in the sources that are not yet covered in the article. The current article content does not determine notability. Also, possible future coverage should be considered. Existing reports indicate there is more to come in this story, so it should be allowed to develop. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is well sourced, but the article does need more expanding. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more time for policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pakistan has an illustrious history of brazen extra-judicial executions and this event is not an outlier. That being said, I can easily argue this article to run afoul of NOTNEWS but rather than suggesting deletion, will request a merge to Encounter killings in Pakistan once it is created. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Robert Delgado

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

References and web search don't indicate this rises above routine coverage. Entry at List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2021 is sufficient. Star Garnet (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a lot of reliable media coverage of this event. It is notable and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion. CT55555 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Star Garnet (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - To expand: On a world-scale, the media covers thousands of murders/killings/unnatural deaths at a high level of detail annually. It is not WP's place to compile that information, or even the few hundred that were covered most closely. Wikinews, sure. The four articles I nominated for deletion after browsing through the 30-odd 2021 murder/killing/death of X articles fall short of the others in level of news analysis and impact on outside events (I'm also skeptical of plenty of the others, but I could at least see a competent argument for them meeting at least one of the WP:EVENTCRITERIA). While they certainly received signicant coverage in the media, that is in the form of news reports. We don't have the secondary sources to satisfy SIGCOV. Could this incident gain notability through a book, law, or otherwise? Sure, in the way that some of today's paintings may get articles in 40 years. But until they have gained that secondary coverage, these are WP:NOTMEMORIAL material. While this incident may have initially appeared to have the potential to have a WP:LASTING impact, that has not been the case, and seems unlikely to. Star Garnet (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This police involved shooting is not a routine "killing". Since the death of George Floyd, Police legitimacy in the USA has become subject to protests as well as some commentary by academics. If this article is deleted then it is likely that content will be inappropriately added to articles like George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon. Keeping this article provides a home for this content, rather than having it added elsewhere. Because of the current high profile of police involved shootings in the USA, it is likely that more article like this are going to be created by contributors. Give this article time to develop, as there is probably more to come on the subject. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input needed especially as it relates to news v. notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pro Football Hall of Fame. ✗plicit 23:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Hay Pioneer Award

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

Award is only given periodically, specifically this award has only been given out nine times since 1972. There seems to be some notability, but sources don't seem to be totally independent. I would support this being Merged with Pro Football Hall of Fame since that's where the award comes from, but I don't know if the award should have it's own space. Some content can be salvaged there. Spf121188 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pro Football Hall of Fame, as the origin of the award. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Vinnylospo, What are your thoughts on merging your article into the Pro Football Hall of Fame article? I think the content you've put in this article is perfect for supplementing that page. Let us know what you think. Spf121188 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pro Football Hall of Fame per above. Not enough WP:SIGCOV in independent sources to establish notability as a standalone topic, but certainly enough to warrant a mention in the merge target article. Frank Anchor 16:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Esther Brown

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

References and web search don't indicate this rises above routine coverage. Star Garnet (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ keep Before commenting I read what meets the criteria for routine events. This is absolutely not routine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Routine_coverage CT55555 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Star Garnet (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see we're essentially having the same conversation on two delete pages, but they may not be closed by the same admin, so I'll say it here too: I'm open to being persuaded, but I'm inviting you rather than to link to policies, be really specific about which part of them you say applies here. I've read the NOTNEWS and I've read the GNG and I've read ROUTINE and this event is not routine, and it's not original reporting and it's not a news report and it is generally notable, so if you wish to persuade me to change my mine (and I'm open to being persuaded) then please really spell it out clearer please. CT55555 (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - On a world-scale, the media covers thousands of murders/killings/unnatural deaths at a high level of detail annually. It is not WP's place to compile that information, or even the few hundred that were covered most closely. Wikinews, sure. The four articles I nominated for deletion after browsing through the 30-odd 2021 murder/killing/death of X articles fall short of the others in level of news analysis and impact on outside events (I'm also skeptical of plenty of the others, but I could at least see a competent argument for them meeting at least one of the WP:EVENTCRITERIA). While they certainly received signicant coverage in the media, that is in the form of news reports. We don't have the secondary sources to satisfy SIGCOV. Could this incident gain notability through a book, law, or otherwise? Sure, in the way that some of today's paintings may get articles in 40 years. But until they have gained that secondary coverage, these are WP:NOTMEMORIAL material. Star Garnet (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I respect your good faith AfD here, I'd like to hear other opinions before opining further myself. I remain "keep" having downgraded from "strong keep" and will be open to being persuaded, hoping that others join in. For now, I'm watching and listening. CT55555 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside whether or not the 'significant coverage' that the event received qualifies as SIGCOV (the sources are reliable but not secondary), I would suggest you look at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Particularly this paragraph: "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." Star Garnet (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A murder with rape of an old person in their own home by a sex offender they did not know is not "a routine murder". It is atypical and is the sort of crime that results in political campaigns being started or commissions of inquiry to pin the blame on somebody. Allow this article time to evolve for a few years. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 81 women killed in 28 weeks (Guardian) is the only WP:SECONDARY source I have found, and it only mentions Esther Brown, in a list. Beccaynr (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because it has significant coverage and is completely not routine. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage, good sourcing. Per WP:GNG at this point. BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - after WP:OR/WP:SYNTH was removed, there is no indication of enduring notability. This subject also does not appear to objectively meet the GNG, e.g. fn3, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works and the brief burst of coverage is not WP:SUSTAINED. Beccaynr (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more consensus on NOT NEWS/Notability and depth of sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment I already opined above, so don't double count this, but I also waivered, so restating for clarity. Also noting that specific feedback was sought on [WP:NOTNEWS] here goes. I see that NOTNEWS gives four things to avoid. 1 - Original reporting. This is not original reporting, everything is cited. 2 It warns against creating articles for routine news of "announcements, sports or celebrities", my anlysis is that trivial content should be avoided. I don't think this article makes that mistake. 3 NOTNEWS tells us to make it about an event, not a person, as this article does. 4 NOTNEWS tells us to avoid celebrity gossip or diary type stuff. This article is not that. To me, this article clearly does not make any of the mistakes that NOTNEWS warns to avoid. And it meets the GNG. I'd also say that this event was covered in The National, the BBC, Sky News and the Glasgow Times. The quality of the Glasgow Times I am uncertain of, but the others are credible news sources with their own employed journalists and editors, the suggestion that some newspapers in some places just copy each other's content is not credible, in this context, to me. This article meets the GNG and none of the comments above, which I've considered carefully, convince me otherwise. CT55555 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTNEWS also states, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events, and per WP:N, Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics, which per the GNG, should include WP:SECONDARY sources to provide the most objective evidence of notability, which would distinguish this article from a brief burst of news articles about a tragic event. Per WP:SBST, Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage, and this is why this 12-sentence article does not appear to meet the GNG. Similarly, the WP:EVENT guideline states in the nutshell section, An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time, and this criteria also does not appear to be supported by the available sources at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already commented earlier, so really tried to avoid repeating my points and focus on the specific point that the admin? wanted input ons, but now you have brought other points up, so I'll comment on them: On notability, every source cited is secondary, they are journalists commenting on events that they were not involved. On WP:SBST, this is not "routine" nor a "press release" and while one source was tabloid, neither the National nor BBC are tabloid. There is one aspect of WP:SBST that I'll acknowledge doesn't support my argument to keep, and that is the need for there to be analysis, the sources do all tend to say what happened without analysis, so I'll concede that point. But I don't think the length of the article is a point to argue on, there's plenty that can be added to it and AfD is not the correct process if we think the article is too short, the correct response to that is to work on the article (I did add a bit to it some days ago, I might do more later). The question of if reporting on the event will continue with time - it's a bit early to tell, we can speculate, it could be argued either way. As someone said above, the brutal rape and murder of an older person by a stranger is an exceptionally uncommon event and it's reasonable to assume that public commentary will be sustainable, but we could speculate either way, Wikipedia does have articles about recent events, so that is no reason to delete. So in summary, I see the things you are pointing to, I accept some validity to the lack of analysis and I acknowledge the unknown about the sustainability of interest. And I remain in my opinion to keep. (I got an edit conflict, as I posted this, so replying to the first version) CT55555 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where this clearly runs afoul of NOTNEWS is part 2. This is simply a series of news reports strung together. This isn't the fault of the article; there's nothing but news reports to draw from. There are no SIGCOV-passing sources. 95%+ of media coverage (reports, interviews, human interest stories, breaking news, editorials, investigative reports, etc.) is not SIGCOV-passing coverage, and does not contribute meaningfully to GNG-worthiness. In this case, it's straight reporting of facts, with negligible analysis. The set of events isn't generic, but murder and/or rape of older people is hardly groundbreaking, and it isn't noted as being so. There's nothing to suggest that this event will have a meaningful impact on larger events, which is the essense of notability as it relates to societal topics. Star Garnet (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the point you are making, even if I don't share your conclusion. I won't add more, as it would be repetitive. I'm confident the closing admin will give both our different conclusions fair consideration, along with hopefully more perspectives. All the best to you. CT55555 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes this is absolutely not routine and surely should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.40 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this incident escapes the confines of WP:NOTNEWS due to the unique circumstances of the attack, which was perpetrated by a repeat offender who had been released from prison. Besides for the ongoing coverage leading up to and including the perp's conviction in court, the case has a WP:LASTING effect due to politicians weighing in on it, such as "The Scottish Conservatives are now calling for greater transparency around parole decisions." [34] StonyBrook (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage is good, event is significant. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner

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

References and web search don't indicate this rises above routine coverage. Star Garnet (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this case had been routine, it would not have been receiving the sustained national [35] and international [36] coverage that it has been getting, per WP:GEOSCOPE. There has been WP:DEPTH of coverage in this case, partly due to the fact that the event occurred in the same time and place as the events surrounding the killing of Gabby Petito, leading to considerable speculation about who the perpetrator/s might be. By all accounts, the event was highly unusual for the location in which it happened. StonyBrook (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are passing coverage (classic WP:PRIMARYNEWS), and any sustained coverage in this case is routine coverage of the stages of a crime investigation. WP:DEPTH specifically discourages using articles like the Independent one (and the vast majority of possible sources for this event), noting similarities/contrasts to a notable event, as evidence of notability. The event warrants a paragraph in the Petito article, nothing more. Star Garnet (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Before commenting I read what meets the criteria for routine events. This is not routine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Routine_coverage CT55555 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is run-of-the-mill murder coverage, i.e. routine. WP:NOTNEWS, etc., etc., etc. Star Garnet (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've read the policies that you link to, but I don't specifically see parts that back up what you are arguing. And I do see where the event meets the general notability requirements. I'm open to being persuaded, but you've not persuaded me. Can you really specifically point out where this should not be on wikipedia, rather than linking to a policy, spell out the parts that you think apply? Until then, I remain unpersuaded. CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - On a world-scale, the media covers thousands of murders/killings/unnatural deaths at a high level of detail annually. It is not WP's place to compile that information, or even the few hundred that were covered most closely. Wikinews, sure. The four articles I nominated for deletion after browsing through the 30-odd 2021 murder/killing/death of X articles fall short of the others in level of news analysis and impact on outside events (I'm also skeptical of plenty of the others, but I could at least see a competent argument for them meeting at least one of the WP:EVENTCRITERIA). While they certainly received signicant coverage in the media, that is in the form of news reports. We don't have the secondary sources to satisfy SIGCOV. Could this incident gain notability through a book, law, or otherwise? Sure, in the way that some of today's paintings may get articles in 40 years. But until they have gained that secondary coverage, these are WP:NOTMEMORIAL material. Specific to this case, WP:DEPTH states that "Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally." Star Garnet (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, I appreciate this context. I don't want to make a hasty comment, so I'll reflect on this. May I just ask one other question of you, I see AfD described a some sort of last resort whereby we should try to improve articles before deleting them. Would you say that you or anyone has done that with these four examples? CT55555 (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        No problem, I should have made a clearer case in the original nomination. While I didn't edit the article (which I did for several of the other pages that I didn't nominate), I did search for sources that could help satisfy SIGCOV, and came up empty. Star Garnet (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside whether or not the 'significant coverage' that the event received qualifies as SIGCOV (the sources are reliable but not secondary), I would suggest you look at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Particularly this paragraph: "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." Star Garnet (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This double murder has been linked by the media to the Killing of Gabby Petito because they occurred within days of each other and in the same vicinity. Both cases also involved the same police department. However, the media speculation connecting the two cases was not substantiated. If one is to consider other possibilities, such as merging with another article then the Killing of Gabby Petito would be a candidate merger option, even though it is not connected. Keeping this as a separate article in some ways protects other articles from inappropriate addition of content. There is enough coverage, worldwide, simply because of the coincidence in space and time for it not to be a "routine" murder or "routine" coverage. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is well sourced and I agree with those who want to keep this as it is clearly not routine. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of good sources. Sustained coverage. BabbaQ (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the unsolved nature of the crime and the FBI investigation into a possible connection to the killing of Gabby Petito appears to be generating sustained and significant coverage in diverse sources, which could further develop the article, e.g. Newlyweds told friends about a ‘creepy guy’ at their Utah campsite. Five days later, they were found shot dead. (Washington Post, Aug. 26, 2021), Details released in deaths of newlywed couple at campsite (Associated Press, Sept. 9, 2021), Utah newspaper pens apology for coverage of double murder in Moab (Independent/Yahoo, Sept. 10, 2021), Utah authorities make rare public appeal for help solving Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner homicides (Independent/Yahoo, Sept. 29, 2021), Unsolved murders and Petito case leave dark cloud over Moab (Associated Press, Oct. 3, 2021), Remembering the light: Local artist creates sculpture in memory of Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner (Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 8, 2022), FBI says Petito, Laundrie not involved in double murder outside Moab (FOX13, Jan. 20, 2022), Investigators Have 'Persons of Interest' in Moab Murders of Crystal Turner and Kylen Schulte (People, Jan. 24, 2022, also reported in the Independent), Family still searching for answers in Utah double-murder investigation (WTKR3, Jan. 25, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Heuberger

AfDs for this article:

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

Only thing that has happened since previous AFD is some ref-bombing with WP:ROUTINE sources. If no one is interested in this subject, let alone write an actually meaningful article about him, there is no encyclopedic value in an article about him. T v x1 16:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AFD is not cleanup, and this is a stub about a clearly notable person (as was established in the previous AFD), even if you may be tempted to redirect to Germany men's national handball team, the source of his notability. Suggest to withdraw this AFD. —Kusma (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to withdraw this. The claim that this subject is notable is a joke. Cleary no-one is interested in this person, or else a meaninful article would have been written a long time ago. There is nothing that proves the encyclopedic value of this article.T v x1 23:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"else a meaninful article would have been written a long time ago"... well, it sometimes takes a while, and non-inclusion is not an indicator for non-notability (else we couldn't write any new articles anymore; in the last year alone, I created articles on people including Max Wallraf and Emil Utitz, who are clearly worthy of inclusion despite having had no articles). It is clear that a sports biography can be written about Heuberger (successfully lead his hometown club to the Handball-Bundesliga, managed the national team, did something else, now manages junior national team). Easy to find more sources: [37], [38], [39]. —Kusma (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has existed like this for ten years. Five years since the last AFD. That’s more than enough to make “it takes a while” a ridiculous excuse. Clearly no one is interested in this person thus justifying a standalone article. Accept reality and stop filling Wikpedia with rubbish articles.T v x1 06:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LeFnake and @Malo95 have now expanded the article, which is much more helpful than us all arguing here about what potential the article has. It still isn't great, but at least now lists some of the person's sporting achievements. @Tvx1: please tell me which of my Wikipedia articles is rubbish and why, and I'll try to fix it. Most of my rubbish articles are 15 years old now. —Kusma (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded with nothing but WP:ROUTINE information. Nothing that actually establishes notability. Let me ask you a question? What are you obessed with blocking deletion of this article? Why is this person so important to you? Why would it be such a drama for you if this were deleted?T v x1 00:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in this person at all (I don't care about handball). I came across this deletion discussion because I look at all Germany-related AfDs. I care about improving Wikipedia, and so I argue to keep or to delete as needed. Sometimes others agree with me, sometimes they don't. But my personal approach isn't the issue here. The Deutschlandfunk Kultur and Handball World sources are significant coverage. There are enough sources interested in the person, not just mentioning him. —Kusma (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kusma says it. There's no time limit on these things. Ingratis (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you state is a valid keep argument.T v x1 06:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable and as Kusma said above, no need to delete. If someone wants to expand it, they can, even if not he stays notable. Kante4 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Kante4 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

You came up with the exact same nonsensical arguments five years ago. Literally no one was interested then and is now to expand this, because there simply isn’t anything to expand this with and because no-one is interested in this subject. I really don’t understand why you are so hell-bent on keeping an article that has no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Moreover, when you claim something is notable, you need to prove that. Something isn’t notable just because you say so.T v x1 06:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you commenting on every single voter who does not share the same feeling as you do? Just let the AfD run out and see how it went (pretty clear right now, tbh). Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not particularly impressed with the sources in the article and found during AfD, since they seem to be heavily interview-based rather than independent analyses. If all that can be found on him is restatements of his quotes there's not really any encyclopedic merit to a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that there is a lack of secondary source, but I found those in german [40], [41], [42]. Nowadays, he played 164 matches in best handball league, played 26 international matches with Germany, was a successful manager of Germany men's national junior handball team between 2002 and 2011 (leading to 2 titles in Junior World Championship in 2009, 2011 and 2 titles in European Junior Championship in 2004 and 2006) and with Germany men's national handball team, he headed two major competitions (7th at 2012 European Championship and 5th at 2013 World Championship). Ok he is not the best known handballer, but I think we should keep this article. --LeFnake (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just playing matches in a sport doesn’t make one notable. Everything you provided is WP:ROUTINE. Notability is achieved through significant coverage in independent sources. You just haven’t provided any justification for keeping this.T v x1 15:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, he did not just played matches in a sport, he played 164 professional matches in 1st handball League (Bundesliga), 26 international matches with Germany (one of the best national team) and has been Germany's coach for 3 years, heading two major competitions (7th at 2012 European Championship and 5th at 2013 World Championship).--LeFnake (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's 100% notable. He was head coach of one of the best and most watched handball team in the world. And most media groups in Germany has a lot of articles about him. (taz: 49; FAZ: ~117; Spiegel: 10; RP Online: 481; Süddeutsche: 23; baden.online: 905) I know most of this is only WP:ROUTINE but I didn't looked at all this articles and some will have deeper coverage. And he will pass WP:GNG without any problems. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Handball. Just being a coach of a team in a sport doesn’t make you notable. Not every sport is fundamentally notable. What we need is significant coverage, which no one so far has been able to provide. You only give a personal feeling about notability.T v x1 16:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is already provided. It looks for me that your personal feelings are in play here. Here an other example of a source which provides a complete interview of him and the women's coach (part 1 and part 2). It is a interview in one of the most prestigious magazine in the world. And here an other article. I really don't know what you want more. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not considered acceptable for notability purposes unless they include SIGCOV by the interviewer (otherwise they are WP:PRIMARY and not independent); that one clearly does not. The second source is better, since, despite having a lot of quotes, there appears to be independent analysis by the reporter. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found more articles about him from the ARD (National public-service broadcaster)

Start as national team coach:[43], [44] & [45]
End as national team coach: [46], [47] and [48] (This would be a news broadcast in the tv, but in the archive not able to play)

The second big national broadcaster ZDF has also an article about the end: [49]

This two broadcaster talked for sure in there sports program about the start and the end of Heuberger. They also showed handball games which he gave interviews etc. And these games watched several millions of people. I really don't know how you have the feelling that he is not notable. If he wouldn't be notable most coaches of all team sports wouldn't be notable as well.🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the only "bombing" taking place here is the WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:BLUDGEONing in this discussion. For context, Germany is one of the few countries in the world which actually has fully professional handball, with good attendances, media coverage etc, which, more importantly, has been demonstrated in this discussion. The article/subject is a bit beyond the need for debating certain details of this or that source, which is an editorial question belonging to the article's talk page. Geschichte (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary A. Conlon

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. No WP:SIGCOV on her career. – DarkGlow • 16:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Walton High School (Bronx) at least if someone can find a source verrifying she was the founder. If not, we need to delete this. Since there are no sources, there is no verrified content to merge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep - Her obituary was in the New York Times [50], and I added that and a few more sources. I am looking for more sources as I have not yet found anything that specifically says she founded the Walton School, though she was its principal. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe her obituary in the New York Times is WP:SIGCOV, and it's certainly a reliable source. Her work in establishing the Bronx Day Nursery is covered in a 1927 book on the Bronx [51]. The other citations confirm her role as principal of schools. I cannot find a citation for the school's first graduation, nor that she watched the construction of the school so I left {{citation needed}} in two places. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not weighing the fact she was local to the New York Times coverage area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:GNG about locality of sourcing. That is a made-up requirement by people who want GNG to be based on significance when really it is based only on coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some local coverge clearly runs into problems of violating not news guidelines. We really should add better guidelines on local coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep Even if you accept the argument that the NYT is more likely to publish obituaries about people from NY, it would still be equivalent to a state-wide newspaper, so providing SIGCOV. In addition with the paragraph in the 1927 book, that should just about establish notability. Femke (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding more about her in Google Books, in particular this delightful (?)[52] lengthy testimony before a US Committee on Communist Propaganda, in which she gives details about a small number of students taking May 1 off, which was apparently a sign of dangerous communist ideas, and of pamphlets found in the neighborhood. Being called on to testify before a congressional committee shows her stature. She is also credited with running an experiment on the teaching of shorthand [53] and praised by the Classical Journal [54] for introducing the study of Greek in the schools. These all show that she was a significant educator. There are regular bulletins of the NY education department that we may be able to use to fill in some of the factual details and other hits on G-Books that I haven't gotten to. Lamona (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lamona - nice job on the added sources. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NYT obituary should be enough but the newly added sources strengthen the case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources have been located to clear the wiki-notability bar. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kounser Shafeeq

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that she's vice-chair of a District Development Council, which is not an "inherently" notable political office -- politicians at the local level do not get automatic inclusion freebies just because they exist, but must demonstrate credible reasons why they should be seen as uniquely more notable than the norm. But this just states that she exists, and is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, with absolutely no evidence shown of any coverage that is substantively about her, and just verifying that she exists is not how you get a local politician over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep : Meets WP:POLITICIAN. Has held several government office positions. Caphadouk (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL is not automatically passed by every holder of every political office that exists; it requires holding office at the state or national levels, but the highest office claimed here is local. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN as she has not held national or regional office. Mccapra (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls well short of an WP:NPOL pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Dees

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

This is an article on an actress who spend all her career in uncredited roles, with one exception. The exception is 4-minutes of standing in in a film for the lead actress who died during production. However they had someone else dub in the voice, so she was just a physical stand in. Our sourcing boils down to a "home town women makes big" coverage article that is predicting this will lead to true stardom, but that does not happen, another paper covering the incident because it is a rarity that someone dies during filming and you need to film them afterward, her papers having been archived, and a primary source on her birth. She clearly fails the acress notability guideline, because even if her one role was significant, that requires multiple roles, and all her other roles were so far from being significant they were not credited at all (it is not even clear she was credited for her stand-in). So I see no way that this article meets our inclusion criteria, and no way that our sourcing is enough in-depth to meet GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She had a by-lined obituary in The Guardian when she died in 2005.[55]. Combined with the other more contemporary coverage already in the article she meets WP:BASIC. pburka (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Saratoga film was a big deal back in the day (New York Times from 1937), and the Guardian obituary is convincing in terms of enduring coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles in The Guardian and The New York Times are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC by sources listed by prev. editors. Samsmachado (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Saba letter

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

This page duplicates parts of Secret Gospel of Mark, except the same content on that page is better organized, better cited, and more detailed. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

obvious merge though it can be argued which way it should go. Also, the present article is sketchy, but the Secret Gospel article is insanely detailed, way past what it reasonable in an encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was created in 2006 as a split from Secret Gospel of Mark. The latter article has been considerably expanded since then, which has led to duplication of content. I think it's reasonable to keep these as separate articles; the thing to do is merge the information about the letter's discovery and the authenticity dispute into this article, leaving the Secret Gospel article to focus on the alleged contents of the gospel and its interpretation. Dan from A.P. (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it appears to be a noteworthy subject, content just needs to be merged in from the other article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Commenters should be aware that there is no Secret Gospel of Mark outside the Mar Saba letter; the latter is the only testimony to the former. Mangoe (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Secret Gospel of Mark article is 140.53 kB and the WP:SIZERULE guideline suggests splitting an article at 100 kB, so the Mar Saba Letter article seems like a natural WP:SPINOUT with the Mar Saba Letter article describing the discovery and the Secret Gospel of Mark article discussing the contents and theological implications - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. ✗plicit 23:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Chavan

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

WP:BLP of a cricket player, not making or reliably sourcing any claim to passage of our inclusion standards for cricket players. The only notability claim being made here is that he exists, and the article fails to say anything about him that could even be measured against WP:NCRICKET, such as what league he played for Maharashtra in. And while there is an external link to a paywalled subscription-only database of cricket statistics, that means I can't get into it to see whether it adds a meaningful notability claim or not -- but there are no footnotes being cited at all to verify anything any other way.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can access CricketArchive, and/or some evidence of Indian sports media coverage, can actually add something to this article that would constitute a notability claim -- but we don't keep unsourced articles just because there might maybe possibly be a stronger notability claim than anybody has been arsed to actually include in the article, we keep unsourced articles only if somebody can prove it. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've restored the content and rewritten it, but all we have here at the moment is a database entry. I haven't looked for significant coverage yet, but List of Maharashtra cricketers seems like an appropriate WP:ATD if none can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We lack sourcing that would lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers 1 FC and 9 LA matches for Maharashtra, but I'm not really seeing anything to suggest a GNG pass in English language sources. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redriect per Rugbyfan22. A technical pass of NCRIC but, there really isn't much on him; any users with access to Hindi sources able to find any additional stuff on him? StickyWicket (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources were given, and no reasons were give as to why sources should exist. Therefore the fails GNG argument is far stronger. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hitlist UK

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

Article about a television chart show, not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, television shows don't get an automatic notability freebie just because they exist(ed), and have to be the subject of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in sources independent of themselves to demonstrate that they are or were notable -- but the closest thing to a source here is a YouTube video clip of an episode of the show. There are absolutely no footnotes illustrating any third party coverage about the show, and the article has been flagged for that problem since 2008 without resolution.
As I don't have access to any database in which I could locate British media coverage from the 1990s, I'm willing to withdraw this if a UK editor can locate better sourcing to salvage it -- but we don't keep badly sourced articles just because it's possible that better sourcing might exist somewhere, we keep badly sourced articles only if somebody actually demonstrates that better sourcing definitely exists. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Does not cite any sources, but can be easily to add some by researching. TzarN64 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more time to find potential sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, there is no citation on the page, but there are enough sources (should be cited) found via Google search. Instead of deleting the article, it should be KEEP for improvement. -NeverTry4Me - TT page 06:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to just say that there are other sources out there. Not everything one might find in a Google search is actually a reliable or notability-supporting source at all, so we don't keep unsourced articles just because somebody says sources exist — you have to show several specific examples of what you found, so that we can evaluate whether they're actually any good or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Needs sources, but I'd give the creator/editors a heads up on needing sources and come back in a month.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at everything, I have to say this is a non-notable, automated and incomplete clone of official UK Singles Chart shows like UK Top 40 (TV series) or The Official Chart. Really no WP:N to be found outside of how they managed to wiggle around Official Charts Company copyrights for twenty years. Nate • (chatter) 17:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rimpy Prince

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

Highly advertorialized article about a filmmaking duo, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The notability claim on offer here is that their work exists, and the referencing consists entirely of their work metaverifying its own existence on either their own self-published website or YouTube. As usual, however, this is not how notability is established: the inclusion test is not "the work exists", it's "the work has been externally validated as significant by third parties independent of the topic's own public relations agent, such as by winning notable awards and/or being the subject of reliable source coverage in real media". Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced properly.
Just to clarify, by the way: even though the advertorialism here is so egregious that it could theoretically be speedied G11, I don't see that as a viable approach here: the advertorialism was added entirely within the last 24 hours and the article is technically revertable back to the version that existed as of yesterday — but that version still didn't make or properly source an actual notability claim at all, so reverting the advertorialism wouldn't actually render the article keepable in the least. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, sources are just youtube videos. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaka Muhammad Umar

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

No significant coverage and the article was created by a blocked user. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, there is no significant coverage. Both this article and the university he founded have been tagged for notability since 2019. Under the article itself, it fails GNG.-Cupper52^Discuss! 18:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I added the basic information and reference about this person into the Jamia Darussalam article, but the reference is no more than a passing mention. Fails to demonstrate individual notability. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn for reasoning given by Eggishorn. Suitability of article to be re-considered when Wikipedia has better access to sources in the .ru domain (which cannot currently be done due to current events). (non-admin closure) Singularity42 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Masodov

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

This is an article about a person who may or may not exist (which the article upfront about). All sources cited appear to be blogs. There may be more reliable non-English sources out there, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Singularity42 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(from the article creator): I paid attention to this way "Find sources: "Ilya Masodov" – news" After that, Google suggested me some distinguished and reliable sources in Russian which not appear to be blog. Most definetely. So I changed my sources to more reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litvinchechka (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - the equivalent Russian article is quite substantial with more references. My Russian is not good but I'll look further. The apparent problem here may be more to do with the creator's English skills. Ingratis (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(from the article creator): I admit that, my English isn't great. Speaking of the article and the Russian one in particular. If you research the sources the Russion one you can see I used other resources which aren't used in Russian version. So esentially it's not total translation even though I use the main poins from there to be sure.

Thank you for clarifying. I'm very sorry for my clumsy phrasing. All I was thinking of was that it's a bit daunting to translate a long article into another language in which one isn't fluent, but (not for the first time) I missed the point. Ingratis (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(from the article creator): Is there any way to improve the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litvinchechka (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Inability to identify the real name of an author is no bar to notability, if they've been discussed in WP:RS. Compare the 18th century British pampleteer Junius (writer), who has never been identified; there's even a standalone article, Identity of Junius, on the problem. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(from the article creator): Well, with regard to inability to identify the real name of an author, we can only rely on Dmitry Volchek's words. He states and insists on Ilya Masodov is a real person. So now I guess the main question if we can trust to Dmitry Volchek's words. He's quite distinguished journalist and the editor-in-chief of Radio Free Europe in Russia. https://www.svoboda.org/contact (Дмитрий Волчек Главный редактор сайта Русской службы)
Comment. To clarify, my AfD nomination is not based on the existence versus non-existence of a person by this name. We have articles on other artists who cannot be named (see Banksy as an obvious example). The fact of the lack of provable identify could be notable. Or the artist could be notable for their work. Or both. I was just unable to identify reliable sources to support the notability. As a non-Russian speaker, I had concern about the Gorky media references, as they appear to be blogs with little editorial oversight. There's one or two other references that I can't tell if they are reliable sources or not. I'm not withdrawing the AfD yet, but would be interested to see if other experienced Russian editors can chime in. Singularity42 (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fact, in Russian Wikipedia, there are no more references than in this version, but many respected and famous people who take their place in Russian Wikipedia speak about the character of the article.Faskat (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Faskat[reply]

Keep The sources are good enough. The genre is rather underground. That's why not many publishers dare editing his works. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more discussion would be helpful. Wonder if we could find some bilingual contributors to expand on the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would ask Singularity42 to withdraw the nomination for the time being. I don't think the nomination was in any way faulty but at the time of the nomination there was no way to predict that searching for Russian sources would become almost impossible. I can see indexes that indicate there might be content about this author in .ru domains but for obvious reasons getting to those resources is, well, spotty. There's really no harm to the project in leaving this article in main space for now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cannon Film Company

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

Non-notable company. Article created by the owner. MClay1 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough news coverage on this. MartinWilder (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guadacanal Resort

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

This unsourced "suburb" article seems from the few available sources online to simply be a holiday resort, and at the wrong title to boot (should be "Guadalcanal", not "Guadacanal"). Fram (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coordinates don't point to a resort, but to Lungga community. Reywas92^Talk 20:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I mentioned this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 1 § Ironbottom Sound: The Guadacanal Campaign (which is where I'm assuming Fram noticed this article), I made an effort to verify its existence, especially at this unusual spelling, and found nothing. Really all of the Honiara suburbs articles need a lot of attention, and some probably should be redirected for lack of meaningful content; but of those I've spot-checked, this is the only one that outright fails verification. (I'd bet there's one or two more, though.) So, delete unless someone can find sources. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harshvardhan Joshi

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

Non-notable mountaineer, who has climbed mount everest once, most of the news references are routine. No RS, fails Anybio Mikekohan (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mikekohan (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the nomination is Mikekohan's seventh edit ever, with flawless knowledge of the deletion process, including both talk page notices and deletion sorting. Geschichte (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like the nominator Mikekohan, created the account with a lack of information regarding the guidelines. No edits were made apart from nominating two pages for deletion without checking the available sources about the topic. Multiple sources related to the topic and clearly passes the WP:GNG. Bigstory1 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page can be improved further, but the subject is well-sourced to make reasonable claims of notability and certainly passes WP:GNG. Google News gives the sources for the person over a long enough period of time from reliable domains. e.g. Independent UK, Times of India, INDIA TV, ABP News, The Himalayan Times.

And to be fair, it feels Mikekohan nominated the page for deletion just for underlying reasons (depending on the intent), not legitimate problems with the article. UphillAthlete (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E. A WP:TOOSOON case. But, apart from this, I'm in total agreement with Geschichte's comment. Also, there is a high possibility about the existence of "two" factions in this AfD discussion that are simultaneously trying to influence the outcome and it surely includes the nominator, a SPA. Closing admin should take a note on this. - Hatchens (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the absence of a specific NSPORTS criteria, evaluating sources based on WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG shows nothing that's independent. Vice article is very long, but exclusively depends on the subject himself for all the photos and the details. Hindu article is just an announcement or a brief interview at best. ToI pieces are, as usual, interviews re-framed as articles. Same goes for the sources found above as well as others from searching. Hemantha (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against renomination. While a simple hatcount of !votes might indicate a "keep", several editors either did not make policy-based arguments in support of their view or made arguments that the extent of sourcing was unclear with respect to passing WP:NCORP. In the absence of a consensus on the state of sources presented, there is no consensus to keep nor delete. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GomSelMash

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

Non-notable company, no RS, all signs of undisclosed paid editing. Mikekohan (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Are You seriously? look please to the Russian and Belorussian varian of this page Ilyadante (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)ilyadante~~ Blocked as a sock Star Mississippi 21:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Cannot find sources that would attest pass of notability. nearlyevil665 19:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You want sours? look please here https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%88 and here https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%88 Ilyadante (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)ilyadante[reply]
Keep, nominator probably doesn't have access to sources. The company sponsored FC Gomselmash Gomel for a total of 25 years, showing its paramount importance in its region. Wikipedia can't have 0 articles about businesses from Belarus' second largest city of 526,872 people. Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the nomination is Mikekohan's first edit ever, with flawless knowledge of the deletion process, including both talk page notices and deletion sorting. Geschichte (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion nomination is like a stupid joke. Maybe it's better to remove Mikekohan from Wikipedia?Ilyadante (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)ilyadan[reply]
- This is the largest plant in the whole region. It's very funny to hear that nearlyevil665 didn't find anything about him, and Mikekohan couldn't think of anything better than to say that he doesn't know such a company and that the article is paid for. It's kind of surreal.Ilyadante (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)ilydadan[reply]

Comment: Ilyadante, the article's creator, has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, as the article has non-trivial contributions from others (and is already listed here), I removed the G5 tag. This does not mean I don't think it should be deleted. As a technically INVOLVED user I will defer to the judgments of others. ChromaNebula (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, I don't agree that this article has had significant contributions, so G5 should still qualify as it was created by a blocked user. See diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=GomSelMash&type=revision&diff=1069959546&oldid=1068443192 nearlyevil 665 06:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if we can come to WP:ORG/CORP consensus rather than G5 since it doesn't seem clear cut enough to be deleted via that route
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: with both the fact that the AFD nom was the user's first edit ever, and the blocking of the first responder, it has the markings of a trainwreck. However I once again ask: Gomel is the second largest city in Belarus, and Gomselmash is the only article about a business currently in Category:Gomel. Should Wikipedia rather have 0 articles about businesses in this city? Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that heads up, I've tagged the sock. Star Mississippi 21:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really understand arguing keeping the article just because it happens to be the only business with a functional Wikipedia page in a certain given city. Since when is that a viable substitute for actual notability as per WP:NORG? Perhaps the better alternative is to create an article about a company based in Gomel satisfying WP:NORG, which I'm sure there are plenty of. nearlyevil665 07:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another article, or 10, or 20, would be ideal! My notion is that Gomselmash is indeed one of the companies in Gomel satisfying NORG, but since I comprehend no Slavic languages, let alone the Cyrillic alphabet, I admit that it's based on more circumstantial "evidence". Namely the fact that Gomselmash sponsored the city's football team for a long time, which in turn caused me to be familiar with it, a person who lives miles and miles away. How many other companies from Belarus, Lithuania, Moldova, Ukraine etc. have foreigners heard about? Not many, if any at all. So again, I personally can't present any actual sources about Gomselmash, but the nominator has not shown any sign of digging for sources either, nor has anyone else conducted a source analysis. The closest we have come is the discredited/blocked user mentioning some existing sources at various Slavic-language Wikipedias, sources not challenged by anyone yet. Claims of "no sources" are no better than WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Geschichte (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth, I've conducted a WP:BEFORE to the best of my ability, and found nothing beyond routine business operation reporting. The sources in the Russian version of the article are all primary sources but one, which is a piece "Lukashenko denying the possibility of selling Gomselmash", which has no significant coverage of the subject, instead offering various quotes on why the privatization of state-owned property is a bad idea. The Belarussian article only has one primary source as a reference. I'd love to hear any countering arguments based on WP:NORG qualifying sources and I'd gladly reconsider my vote if presented with such. nearlyevil 665 19:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Geschichte's arguments, and from a inclusionist's perspective. This is not a WP:BLP article where sources must verify no matter what. Perhaps the article could be tagged to add English sources and/or to verify existing references — DaxServer (t · c) 12:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the Russian page cites this article, in which Lukashenko's decision not to sell the company was apparently notable enough to make the news outside of the country. The sources of the Belorussian article are mostly the company's own website, but there is a fair bit of coverage in a couple Belorussian newspapers. Individually it is all routine but there does seem to be a good volume of it, and it indicate that the company is a significant player in its region. I don't have the time right now to look for further sources, but I will try to come back to this later and see if I can find anything else in Russian. Rusalkii (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Maluma

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

Appears to be related to Gregson Maluma which was deleted after clear consensus here. Some of the sources appear to be new so I'm not sure that this qualifies for speedy deletion. A lot of the sources look like self-published spam and there is no claim to meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NSPORT or any other guideline. Source analysis to follow. I did a WP:BEFORE search but found nothing additional. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment - fails WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12739962/		WP:IMDB	Just a profile page	✘ No
https://contents101.com/2021/09/18/greg-maluma-biography-age-educational-career-and-net-worth/		Clearly a user-generated page rather than professional work		✘ No
https://www.radiotimes.com/programme/b-8ud37w/martial-arts-mind-and-body/			Passing mention	✘ No
https://nofilmschool.com/u/gregmaluma	This is Maluma's own user page	https://nofilmschool.com/about - filmmakers can make their own user page on this site. This is what Maluma did.		✘ No
https://www.musicinafrica.net/directory/greg-maluma		This is a social media site where artists can promote themselves. It is unreliable and doesn't indicate notability.		✘ No
https://nofilmschool.com/u/gregmaluma			As per #4	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20220130051520/https://newscolony.com/entertainment/greg-malumas-biography-fact-career-awards-net-worth-and-life-story/		Unreliable content scraper		✘ No
https://viadeo.journaldunet.com/p/greg-maluma-7966008	Personal profile created by Maluma	Personal profile created by Maluma		✘ No
https://www.amazon.com/kyokushin-kenbukaikan-technical-syllabus-karate-ebook/dp/B09PDVKMT2		Anyone can sell on Amazon	Linking this on Wikipedia is a form of advertising and fails to establish notability. Anyone can sell a book on Amazon	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. DMySon (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trackpedia

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

Fails the general notability guideline. The only sources I could find were forum posts, affiliated pages and unreliable YouTube and Vimeo videos. Page creator appears to have been a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting the website on Wikipedia. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Article is written like an advertisement, and I'm shocked that this was nominated for deletion before this. Spf121188 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nominator's comments. Quite an audacious bit of advertising. Subject lacks meaningful coverage and what exists does not warrant an article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article for an apparently non-notable subject. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not only does it read like an advertisement, it also solicits advertising. Kablammo (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising material and promotional content. Mann Mann (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Promotional tone aside, the sources on this page fail WP:SIGCOV, and other than brief mentions in book sources, I was unable to find any that pass. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G11 Speedy delete this promotional content. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's starting to snow Spf121188 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though CSD:G11 does not apply since this article is not “exclusively promotional,” it is somewhat descriptive of the topic. However this is still a clear fail of GNG per nom Frank Anchor 02:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The keep commenters seem to be ignoring WP:BLP1E, which greatly weakens their arguments, but there is too little support for deletion to have a consensus for that. RL0919 (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Ustinov

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

Absolute insignificance by WP:NACTOR --Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Isn't most of his notability derived from the beating and arrest by police, subsequent political protest that it inspired, and international coverage? — BriefEdits (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: as per nom. Why it is in AfD? It should have been put for WP:CSD directly. - Hatchens (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: Again, isn't his acting stuff pretty insignificant compared to the rest of the article which contains most of the notability? — BriefEdits (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BriefEdits: This entity's arrest and release was a single event and we need to categorize it under WP:BLP1E. -Hatchens (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: I can see where you're coming from and as somebody not familiar with the 2019 Moscow protests, I can't really comment too much on his involvement. But the amount of coverage present (i.e. from Hollywood Reporter, the Guardian, BBC etc.) is, in my opinion, enough to pass WP:VICTIM. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BriefEdits: If the entity is covered only for a single event then there would be always a scrutiny on its' notability as per the WP:BLP1E. But again, it all depends on how the closing admin decides on the closure of this AfD discussion. Whatever it might be - WP:BLP1E or WP:VICTIM, they are always going to have my support. -Hatchens (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not a place to declare anyone a perpetrator or a victim. WP:NPOV is the founding pillar of this platform. -Hatchens (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: It's a bit of a stretch to say that I wasn't being neutral. I was just synthesizing my assessment from the sources listed in the article. Even then, I stand by my original point that the breadth of the topic and coverage is enough to pass WP:GNG. — BriefEdits (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nomination text of "absolute insignificance" is unconvincing since he's plainly the subject of a great deal of press coverage. That appears enough to meet GNG on its own. And the "speedy delete" vote above is even dumber, there's no cause for a speedy deletion of a sourced article that is 2.5 years old and exists on three other languages wikipedias as well. Why the Russian one has been up for deletion for two years without a resolution is probably for reasons as complicated as a Dostoevsky novel. We need not take so long.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems that this person received a wave of hype from some notable Russian actors, as in the end being mediated only on the basis of protests.--Tysska (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Garcia Combs

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:FILMMAKER. Other than the lack of subject specific coverage, I don't think having made a film that has been reviewed by blogs and a screenplay that is in a library is enough to establish notability. BriefEdits (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film has been reviewed by The Hollywood Reporter, in the review it states that "Director-screenwriter Angela Garcia Combs has a habit of telling rather than showing when it comes to her characters, meaning that we know Louise is smart and great at her job because her boss keeps telling her so rather than seeing her in action, using her acumen to, say, find her way around closing a tricky deal." Variety review: "A character-driven showcase for the talents of helmer Angela Garcia Combs". Work has won significant critical attention, passess WP:FILMMAKER. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Кирилл С1: Thanks for the links. I would generally say that one film isn't enough to constitute WP:FILMMAKER because then we'd just have an article on that film instead. But I'm open to discussion. — BriefEdits (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - After research online and at the Wikipedia Library, and some revisions to the article, I think it may be possible per WP:NFILM to create an article about Nothing Special, e.g. The Olympian 2010, THR 2011, LA Weekly 2011, Variety 2011, but WP:FILMMAKER notability does not seem supported by these reviews. The article also mostly relies on primary and non-independent sources for biographical and career information, to the extent it has citations, and there do not appear to be sufficient secondary sources available to support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC) However, based on the sources found by Pburka, I am updating my !vote to keep per WP:CREATIVE due to her collective body of work and the independent reviews that could be incorporated into the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is largely about her notable film, Nothing Special. If someone wants to spend a few minutes they could easily reorganize the article and move it to Nothing Special (film), but moves during deletion discussions are discouraged. However, I note that some of her other works may also be notable, for example Missouri Waltz (see Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Backstage, L.A. Times, L.A. Weekly). pburka (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rescind nomination Per Pburka. Not really knowledgable about theatre but that amount of coverage will probably suggest that it is a notable piece of theater. My cynicism wants to discount it as mill local theater coverage (it's rather difficult to tell with LA) but I think I can err on the side of notability and just clean up the article instead. — BriefEdits (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doru Sechelariu

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

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this largely unsourced WP:BLP, with a WP:BEFORE search only seeming to return WP:ROUTINE coverage, passing mentions, or sources which do not appear to be independent of the subject. Ideally someone who can read Romanian could help with determining whether there are any suitable sources which could get this article up to the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Subject fails the GNG. The article claims he is/was a professional driver but GP3 was not a professional series. Either way, not enough coverage to prove notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – After looking at MSport1005's comments clearly there aren't zero sources. I wouldn't say he unambiguosly passes GNG, and I'd personally prefer deletion, but there appears to be coverage in Romania so it doesn't seem as bad as it did. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 21:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I don't speak Romanian, but I could find these with ease: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60] covering his "promising" career and his future aspirations, [61] apparently covering an incident with the police, [62] is more of a passing mention as a young up-and-coming Romanian talent, [63], [64] two visibly non-ROUTINE announcements, and [65], [66], [67], [68] which suggest some sort of relevance as an F1 pundit/expert in his country. Funnily enough, he was the subject of an F1-related april fools joke: [69], and even the gossip press talks about him nowadays [70], [71]. I might have a second look later to see if I can find more, but just based off this (combined with the fact that he completed a full GP3 season) he seems to comfortably meet GNG. MSport1005 (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided for now. He completely fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, so we turn over to WP:GNG. Looking at MSport1005's sources, bits in Adevarul [72]/[73] (per WP:GNG they count as one source) are good examples of secondary non-trivial coverage. Automarket seems good enough, but I am not sure whether that website is a reliable source. Fanatik one is an interview, and thus isn't independent to count for notability. Realitea Sportiva one just copies Fanatik's interview. Cancan is a tabloid website, making it not reliable. Evenimentul Zilei bit has only 3 sentences (2 of those being short) about him, so I can't call that WP:SIGCOV. SportAuto is a quote farm (meaning it's not independent), and MotorsportNews is a mere blog. Gazeta Sporturilor contains his analysis of Hamilton-Verstappen battle, but is of very little importance in terms of his own notability. TVS24 is yet another blog, Cancun again, WP:TRIVIA April Fools, WowBiz isn't a significant coverage of Doru. I'll try to dig for more sources if possible (including my research on Automarket), but for now I'm leaning delete. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've had another look at them. #1/#5 and #2 are SIGCOV (Automarket indeed is reliable). #4 as you say is just a copy, #7 and #8 aren't sufficiently extense. The ones you wrote off as blogs (#9, #11, #13) I'm not sure they actually are, as messy as they might look (their reliability might need review though). The fact that a newspaper like Fanatik (#3) went to interview him, tabloids (#6, #15) talk about him without even needing to introduce him, and GSP (#10, #12) have him as their go-to expert suggest clear notability within Romania. #14 I never intended it as SIGCOV, and #16 is a tabloid and refers to him as "Dumitru's son" so we can ommit those two. We're left with potentially 6/7 proper sources, plus whatever we can find in an advanced WP:BEFORE search, so I'm heavily inclined towards keep. MSport1005 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. It appears that you have found some sources which I was unable to find in my searches. I'm still not fully convinced that this meets the WP:GNG, but the Adevarul sources probably take the article half-way to meeting it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources shared by MSport1005 appear to establish notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Ziani Guennon

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Can't find any newspaper articles or the like on him. Just barely scrapes by WP:FOOTYN having made a 84th-minute substitute appearance in the CAF Champions League for Wydad AC. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass GNG from a cursory Google search.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ortizesp: Could you link examples of references? I only posted this AfD because I didn't find any from my own "cursory Google search". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 22 years and actively playing for a club playing in a Fully professional league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that he is actively playing there? The article says he is not. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find any news reports using "Bilal Ziani Guennon" or "Bilal Guennon", although there was one routine hit with "Guennoun". It looks like Ziani is what he goes by. Regardless, none of these searches turned up anything approaching significant coverage. And meeting NFOOTY is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From what it appears, player hasn't appeared in any professional games in his career? Josh (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only the 6 minutes against Kaizer Chiefs so far. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 16:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TerraDrive

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

This niche RPG seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE is of little help (the only indepedent sigcov surce I see is the cited ArsTechnica piece [74]). It seems this was a 2007 era attempt to promote an upcoming product - the article hasn't improved much since and still states "It is scheduled for release at PAX: The Penny Arcade Exposition on August 26, 2007." This is also a near fork of a related game TerraDrive Live which seems even more niche (google just gives about ~200 ghits for this...). We also had an article about the developer, that was deleted a long while ago it seems (Technomancer Press). PS. I am not sure how to make a bundle AFD (since TD Live is de facto a fork). If this is deleted, I guess TDLive can be prodded? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I have tagged TerraDrive Live for deletion in this nomination discussion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. They don't seem to meet any criterion for notability I can find. FalconK (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: TerraDrive was previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Both articles clearly fail WP:GNG. Searching for sources, I only really found this Ars Technica article about TerraDrive Live ([75]), and then absolutely nothing else. One article does not an article make. Nomader (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waterland WaterPark (Thessaloniki)

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

I failed to detect significant coverage from indepedent reliable sources. C messier (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG. Best I could find outside of personal blogs was this from GTP Headlines, a marketing agency for the travel industry in Greece. Despite lack of WP:RS qualifications, they post a top 10 list in Greece supposedly compiled by TripAdvisor. While the top 4 water parks are discussed by GTP, Waterland barely makes the list and is nothing more than a passing mention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Augustine's College (Malta)

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

Issues with notability _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 10:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 10:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic secondary school. Easily enough sources available to satisfy WP:GNG. as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't see 'any other secondary school in the western world' with an article tough, I suppose. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 18:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He copies and pastes almost the same message into every AfD related to secondary schools in the western world, universities, really spin the wheel, and never provides the references he claims exists either. Even though there are supposedly easily enough of them to satisfy WP:GNG. Most of the time the his "votes" are ignored by whoever closes the AfD. So it's not a super big deal, but it is a bit pedantic if not borderline disruptive. I'm hoping someone will report him to ANI for it eventually, but it's better to just to ignore him in the meantime, WP:DFTT. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid I don't copy and paste. And stop the suggestions that editors whose opinions differ from your own should be reported to ANI, which is arrogant in the extreme. As I have said before, Wikipedia is becoming a deeply unpleasant place. Try not to contribute to it. And, incidentally, how dare you suggest that I am a vandal or a troll per WP:DFTT! This is a clear breach of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I would suggest you take a look at my contributions to this project. A vandal or troll I most certainly am not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could quote at least a dozen times in the last couple of months where you've said almost the exact same thing in your "votes." I'm not going to bother though because they are pretty easy to find. In the meantime maybe you can tell me how the essay on your user page is a presumption of good faith, contributes to a pleasant environment, and doesn't come off as extremely arrogant. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not copying and pasting. That's saying the same thing because that's my opinion, as I am entitled to do without being accused of being a vandal or a troll or it being suggested that I should be "reported" for daring to express an opinion that is different from yours. The essay on my userpage reflects how I feel about those who come here to delete rather than expand and the unpleasantness that results if they are challenged, and I stand by it. I have been here a long time; I have seen how AfD discussion has got nastier year on year and how those who want to delete react when their views are opposed. And I am not directing an attack at anyone in particular. You clearly are. Kindly desist and do not accuse me of things that are patently untrue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you equated me saying I hope someone reports you eventually for repeatedly making un-constructive comments in AfDs into me suggesting you should be reported for "daring to have opinions that are different then mine" but whatever. I could literally give a crap if you have different opinions then me. That's not my issue. Outside of that, it's kind of weird that on the one hand your being so adamant that I should respect your opinions and feelings, while on the other your insulting me over mine by calling me arrogant and making such a brew haha over this. Why not just respect my opinions and feelings about it instead of insulting me? If your so concerned with AfDs being civil, then don't call people names or make a massive issue out of nothing like your doing here. I was reading a guideline or something about trolling the other day, and it said something along the lines of "trolls make non-constructive edits because they are powerless to do anything else" or something like that. Which I think perfectly describes what your doing in AfDs about schools. Your free to disagree though. I could really care less. Obliviously the term troll is subjective and people are going to have differing ideas on what constitutes trolling. So maybe don't attack me for "daring to express an opinion that is different from yours" about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you genuininely can't understand why a long-serving and highly productive editor may not be particularly keen on a comment directed straight at him which says "Most of the time the his "votes" are ignored by whoever closes the AfD. So it's not a super big deal, but it is a bit pedantic if not borderline disruptive. I'm hoping someone will report him to ANI for it eventually, but it's better to just to ignore him in the meantime, WP:DFTT", then I have nothing further to say other than learn to moderate your language and reread WP:AGF and WP:NPA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about your "standing" or how productive of a user you are. This isn't an elite tennis club in the Hamptons or whatever. Being a longstanding, "highly productive" editor doesn't exempt you from the obligation to provide references in an AfD when you claim they exist. Nor does your "standing" justify the clearly insulting user page essay. Tone it down, support your claims of notability with some evidence, and I wouldn't have an issue with you. In the meantime it's hard to take your complaint about me saying your trolling seriously when your fine using the term on your user page. Which is literally the only reason I brought it up. If you think the term "troll" is a personal attack and bad faithed, cool, then don't use the term and I won't either. It's that simple. In the meantime though, I'm not to concerned about using a word to describe your behavior that you clearly have no issue with. WP:AGF and WP:NPA aren't one way streets. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't get the difference between a comment on an AfD page aimed squarely at an individual editor and an opinion essay on a userpage which mentions no particular editors. Never mind. I'm sure most other editors do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get the idea that your are still in complete denial over the outcomes of the 2017 RFC about notability of schools. The Banner talk 18:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get the idea that you didn't read my first comment and the comments of almost everyone else on this AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with @Necrothesp on this one. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 15:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever our personal opinions or the outcome of this particular AfD, there's been multiple ANI complaints in the last couple of months where people were sanctioned or warned for writing extremely similar messages in AfDs and not backing them up with evidence. From what I remember of those people got a pass because of their success rates either. Let alone because they were long-time contributors or whatever. Personally, I don't care that much about it, but the wider consensus is clearly against people writing two or three sentence votes that lack any sort of supporting evidence. Also, I think if people are going to participate in AfDs they should at least be willing to put the minuscule amount of effort into this that it takes to copy and paste a reference they say exists. Otherwise, leave it to other people who are willing to and work on other areas of Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there's been multiple ANI complaints in the last couple of months where people were sanctioned or warned for writing extremely similar messages in AfDs and not backing them up with evidence. From what I remember of those people got a pass because of their success rates either. Let alone because they were long-time contributors or whatever. Really? Because I can't find a single ANI case like this "in the last couple of months". Care to provide us with a link to at least one of these "multiple ANI complaints in the last couple of months where people were sanctioned or warned for writing extremely similar messages" so we can see what you mean? I've never known an editor to be sanctioned for expressing their opinion at AfD so long as it was not attacking another editor. I've seen the occasional editor who doesn't like their views being challenged call for such sanctions (probably not at ANI, however), but I've also seen those calls dismissed out of hand as ludicrous. I would be extremely worried about the direction in which Wikipedia was heading if such sanctions or even warnings were imposed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused of malicious intent recently because I almost always vote keep, but the editor never replied when I challenged their accusations. NemesisAT (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you have to get used to it (you shouldn't have to, but it's become the nature of "debate" here). It's been happening to me for several years now. I tend to have a live and let live policy. I'll vote keep if I have strong feelings that something is worth keeping, but won't usually bother voting delete if I don't because I don't think that AfDs where you don't really have strong feelings either way are worth the hassle. It really upsets deletionists, who seem to think it means I want to keep everything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't find the ANI complaint right now, but someone was topic banned from AfDs for three months a few days ago for repeatedly asserting things were notable without providing evidence, among other things. There was also the ARS members who were either blocked or warned for similar things. One of which was repeatedly asserting that things were notable and being unwilling to provide references when people asked for them. Personally, I'm not really upset about how you vote. Really, I just think that providing references when you say something is notable shows respect for the process and other users. Plus, I really hate to see things get deleted just because keep voters can't be bothered to click a mouse button. Really, if we are all in this to improve Wikipedia I don't see how not providing a reference does that. Wouldn't it be better to provide the references your able to find so they can be added to the article? I don't think that's such an unreasonable request. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So neither you nor I can find this or any other incident on ANI. How very odd! Especially given there are, according to you, "multiple" cases over the last couple of months. However, I suspect you may be referring to this. A case where an editor merely posted "Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article" on every AfD in which he participated. Which, as I'm sure you will appreciate if you read it, bears no resemblance to anything I have posted on AfDs. But, of course, that's just one of the "multiple" incidents you claim have occurred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your talking about when you just found one of the incidents and I was pretty clear about the other one involving ARS members, which is easy to find, but sure dude. Neither of us found anything. Right. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned there's only a superficial difference between repeatedly saying "Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article" and repeatedly saying "keep because clearly this is notable." To quote from ANI complaint about Davidgoodheart's behavior, "it casts serious doubt on this editor's review of the deletion discussion and source material," "clearly not at AfD to individually assess each article's merits," "Davidgoodheart clearly has difficulty understanding how to participate usefully in deletion discussions," "I have been discounting these comments due to their obvious pro forma nature once I noticed it was the same wording repeated in multiple AfDs...this approach to commenting is inappropriate and has gone on far too long." Literally all those quotes could apply to you. Especially the last one. Your literally repeating the same thing over and over. Nothing in how you vote shows that you are assessing articles on their own merits or reviewing the source material either. Let alone is your participation in AfDs discussions at all useful. You just get ignored and someone else provides the references. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quite a lot of sources available through a Google search, I've added some to the article. NemesisAT (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in Times of Malta added to the article together with other reliable sources coverage so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Most of the article implies that it is only a primary school. If so, surely it is NN. Whatever it is, this is a poor stub of an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be both a primary and a secondary school. Primary schools may still have articles if they pass GNG, they are not "surely" non-notable. NemesisAT (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from what I can tell the references are extremely trivial, passing mentions and related to mundane, non-notable facts. Outside of that there is nothing that would constitute the in-depth, direct coverage required by WP:GNG. Sorry, but there isn't really a scenario where a Wikipedia article about someone stealing a public address system from the school would work. let alone be encyclopedic. Same goes for them temporarily moving into a different school building, which three references in the article are about. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The school has existed since 1848. Given the level of sourcing available online I think its highly likely newspaper sources exist from earlier as well. The problems with the premises are far from mundane and appear to have been controversial. There are several articles already cited that focus on the subject, which establishes notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your comment of the "controversy" relates to what I mentioned about someone stealing the PA system. I wouldn't exactly call that a controversy. Except maybe to a couple of mom's at a soccer game, but then anything would qualify as controversial. Personally I prefer standards of notability that don't include things a couple of mom's at a soccer practice would gossip about, which is literally everything. Really, the whole "controversy automatically equates to notability" thing is ridiculous in the first place. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. We aren't here to provide people the latest news on celebrity dating gossip or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the controversy surrounding the expansion of the school, which seems to have gone on for several years. I'm not aware of a PA system being stolen, perhaps you're thinking of the article where computers were stolen? NemesisAT (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. It didn't seem like that was a controversy. Yes, computers, a PA system, and I think a few other things. In case your wondering, I singled out the PA system being stolen because computers and computer parts regularly get stolen from schools. PA systems though, not so much. So I think the PA system being stolen is slightly more notable then the computers. Although both are still extremely mundane and probably not worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please. Assertions and grandiose statements are as useful in determining a consensus as a bucket of warm spit would be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/marsa-state-school-building-to-house-st-augustine-primary.460618		Times of Malta is a long-running print newspaper, appears to be reliable		✔ Yes
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/old-medical-school-to-be-transferred-to-st-augustine-college.435876	Third-party perspective discussing the school and government's actions		Article focuses on the school	✔ Yes
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/house-committee-approves-transfer-to-st-augustine-college.437582			~ Very short article, but does focus on the school	~ Partial
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/1-792-student-vacancies-in-church-schools.397277			Passing mentions	✘ No
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/medical-school-building-offered-as-solution-to-st-augustine-school.409756			Article focuses on the school	✔ Yes
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Heartbreak-for-students-as-new-computers-stolen.551324	Article based on account from a member of staff at the school		Focuses on an incident that happened at the school	✘ No
https://newsbook.com.mt/en/st-augustine-college-to-restore-historic-home-to-extend-secondary-school/		Small website with little information available on it	Article focuses on the school	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Please see the source assessment table above. I was perhaps being a bit harsh on Newsbook, I have no reason to beleive it isn't reliable. Meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there is sufficient significant coverage to meet GNG; it does all come from a single source, when multiple sources are typically preferred, but I believe we need to take into account the size of Malta and the fact that there are less reliable sources there than there are for other countries. BilledMammal (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NemesisAT. Sourcing is sufficient to meet minimum requirements of GNG. --Jayron 32 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless of the endless swirl around schools/ORG and my personal feelings therein, it appears that this particular school meets the GNG. Beyond the ones IDed above, I found this, which provides some history worth adding/sourcing. Star Mississippi 18:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous circuit

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

Single sentence unsourced article that has remained unchanged for ~13 years. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 10:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 10:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search shows that there's a LOT of research in this area. While this article is currently just a definition, there seems to be more to be said on this topic, to the point where I think it certainly meets WP:GNG. I'll add what seems a reasonable reference, and hopefully someone with a more relevant area of expertise can do more. PianoDan (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 02:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aravan Festival in Coimbatore

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

~~Non-notable festival related article I2karankiran (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia page represents an important cultural event and festival in Coimbatore region. And also proper sources have been cited. So this page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccmtt12345 (talk • contribs)

Keep because it seems notable and cites proper sources. But very less information has been added in article. It should be improved instead of deleting. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olimjon Karimov

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

Has only made appearances in WP:NOTFPL leagues to date (checking Football Database as well as Soccerway) so no claim to WP:NFOOTBALL. Searches such as this and this only provide trivial coverage so WP:GNG is not established. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to have WP:SIGCOV so fails GNG. Per nom, delete. GauchoDude (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If people think a redirect is warranted, they can create one, although it appears unlikely to me that somebody would search for this phrase. Sandstein 09:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M&M Desexualization Controversy

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Not every flash-in-the-pan "controversy" or talk show host stupidity needs an article here. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. These days people raise such "controversies" on everything everyday, but being a notable subject requires more than the mocking by a TV-host. Cavarrone 10:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not worth an article, but the anthropomorphized M&M commercials are. People have been talking about the oddly sexualized nature of some of them, casual violence/cannivalism, etc. for some time now. So reframe to be about that broadly. I thought about doing it myself, but I can't bring myself to start an article about a commercial campaign. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have a lengthy M&M's#M&M's characters section, isn't that sufficient. The M&M's article also has a very long section on "marketing", with little focus on encyclopedic discussion of the marketing, but a rambling series of trivia like "In 2007, M&M's introduced a limited-edition raspberry flavor called "M&M's Razzberry Chocolate Candies"." A cleanup of the main article, with one line about the "controversy", may be feasible. Fram (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I mean is that section could probably stand to be its own article. If someone did that, there might be cause for a few words about this (certainly not as a "controversy"), but it would be undue in the parent article so I guess Delete otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cavarrone. I'd like to add: NOT-WP:LASTING. It's so funny and sad that this wasn't successfully prodded. It's precisely this that was frivolous (with reference to the edit summary), and not the proposed deletion. tw^sabin 17:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete M&M's#M&M's characters should cover it without the usual 'culture war' kvetching (as long as the yellow M&M remains the kind and nervous soul he is, I don't care about the rest of it). Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. I get that performers are always trying to drum up a reaction to whatever is going on in pop culture, but Wikipedia is a place to cover long-term factual information, and not short term bursts of opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content somewhere: Readers would be best served by this episode being covered somewhere in our coverage of m&ms and the recent mascot changes, with the barest mention of Tucker's views. Carlson's attitude to sexual issues leads him to make the most bizarre comments on these things. I fear to know the inner workings of his brain.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M&M's#M&M's characters per WP:NOTNEWS, that way if any content does need to be preserved it can be done so. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are twitter people starting the controversy. TzarN64 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely to be WP:LASTING. Will likely stay undue for the main M&M's article. Femke (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't believe this page got made before Twitter got bored of the M&M thing. This realistically shouldn't even be on the main M&M page, let alone have it its own page. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few sentences to M&M's. Does not appear to have generated enough secondary coverage to warrant a separate article, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SUSTAINED. If a company thinks so many people are getting sexually attracted to their anthropomorphic candy mascot that they have to change it, that's their perogative and not a real "controversy". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M&M's#M&M's characters. Never heard about this incident, I thought I was the only one who thought some of the M&M characters were oddly sexualized for a candy mascot. Surprised to hear someone objecting to a desexualization of an anthropomorphic character but it's not worthy of an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename to List of rowing clubs. Sandstein 09:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of rowing blades – Club oars

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

Unsourced (tagged since 2011) gallery with no indication of notability for the topic as a group (individual oars will be verifiable, but that isn't sufficient to have an article here). Only external link is a hobby website, not the kind of source that establishes notability either. Fram (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest Keep but certainly needs citation. This is a tough one as it empirically does NOT meet Wikipedia's guidelines, but the nature of it (a list of information relating to a broader topic) is of value to that broader topic, which itself has established clear notability. That said, following a few of the club links, it appears that most of them have their own colors (usually in the same image as found here) so this list is a nice reference, but not strictly required. -Markeer 13:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid information list. Plenty of things listed have their own articles as well, so valid navigational list as well. Dream Focus 14:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I must have missed it. Which of these rowing blades have their own articles? Fram (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The clubs, like Drummoyne Rowing Club have their own article. --evrik ^(talk) 16:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - This list not just the color of their oars, but the names of the clubs, that's what linked to. Just rename it to List of rowing clubs. So far the Category:Lists of rowing clubs only has List of rowing clubs on the River Wear and List of rowing clubs in Australia. Dream Focus 15:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, reusing information for a list with a different focus then. That wasn't really clear from your original post... Fram (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid information list. --evrik ^(talk) 16:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Copying the text from someone else's vote, which they afterwards had to clarify completely as the original vote didn't make much sense, isn't really helpful. Keep as is, "keep" as a completely repurposed and retitled list, or something else? Fram (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you being so aggressive and critical? I thought it was pretty straightforward. Why belabor the issue. I have now started adding references. --evrik ^(talk) 16:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - So no reason to keep this actually. Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a lot of negativity for a Monday morning. It's a valid list, it has sources. --evrik ^(talk) 16:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        But that's not what creates a valid list. You need sources for the topic as a whole, not just (primary) sources for the individual entries. You could create list of rowing clubs whose president is called John and find sources for that as well, that doesn't mean that it is a valid list. Fram (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It's part of a broader topic, which is itself notable. --evrik ^(talk) 17:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        And...? How does this translate to a keep for this list? Notability is not inherited, that an unnamed briader topic is notable has no bearing on this topic. Fram (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it to List of rowing clubs. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean towards delete here but I think this needs to be looked at alongside List of rowing blades and List of rowing blades – National team oars. These articles are badly sourced and I cannot find anything other than very niche and unreliable sources speaking about this as a subject. I have a feeling that all of these fail WP:LISTN. I cannot see the argument for navigational purposes unless each individual rowing blade had its own article. To argue for navigational value this would need to be List of rowing clubs as Bduke said above. If reliable sources can be found - I say keep and merge the three. If not - delete all three. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of rowing clubs as per above. Remove all the non-notables. The distinction of just being a club is more notable than the colours of their oars (or other uniformed equipment). Ajf773 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this point the consensus is to keep the article. --evrik ^(talk) 21:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, why do you add your interpretation of the consensus at a random point in the discussion? The closing or relisting admin will decide this, they don't need the article creator (or the AfD started) to tell them what the consensus is. Fram (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as mentioned above. Gusfriend (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of rowing clubs, since the current topic does not meet WP:NLIST. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would sugges merging to National Team oars or List of rowing blades – School and university, but that would make those unwieldy.--evrik ^(talk) 21:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Antelope Valley earthquake

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

No impact Dawnseeker2000 23:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per Dawnseeker2000 --Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 23:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few rockfalls and felt by many people is not sufficient to establish notability. Mw 6.0s in California are not uncommon or surprising; rarely do they cause extreme destruction. This is just another of those events that fails to stand out due to the lack of impacts. Much of the contents can be covered in the List of earthquakes in 2021 or Walker Lane articles Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 08:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just another 6.0 without any impacts Hanami-Sakura (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] Fieari (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a strong earthquake. While it is true that (thankfully) no serious damage or injuries occurred, that could only be considered a miracle, since large boulders were littered all over U.S. Route 395 in Coleville, and shaking was felt all the way in San Francisco. StonyBrook (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong earthquakes can be relegated to the numerous earthquake catalogs that are present via the institutions (USGS, ISC, NGDC, etc.). There's no encyclopedic value in talking about shocks that were "felt at a great distance". Dawnseeker2000 14:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are 100 6.0-level earthquakes that happen every year. [86] While WP clearly shouldn't cover all of them, I am arguing that this one is unique, based upon the coverage in Fieari's refs, which only happened because of the effects it had on people. If it had occurred, say, in the middle of the desert or the ocean, it would probably have gone almost unnoticed. StonyBrook (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Fieari's refs" aren't describing an encyclopedic event. Those news stations are reporting news to get clicks. It's their business. Dawnseeker2000 22:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are multiple reliable independent secondary sources with editorial control, reporting directly on the event itself in a non-incidental manner. That is the very definition of WP:GNG. EVERYTHING a news organization reports on is to obtain clicks. The things they decide will get clicks, more particularly, the things that they ALL decide will get clicks? Those things are notable for Wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are not suitable sources for an earthquake article. Dawnseeker2000 15:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable enough for an article. California is an active seismic area and it having M6 earthquakes are not uncommon. The quake being felt by a lot of people doesn't give it much notability. There is a lack of impacts from this earthquake to consider it notable enough for an article. Reego 41 10:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above source dump doesn't comply with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:SIGCOV. Just a couple of videos and short reports from the time of the earthquake, July 2021. Avilich (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I glanced through some of the provided news articles, but agree that there is nothing notable to justify an article. Some of the info could be added to an expanded paragraph on the List of earthquakes in 2021 page.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kakistocracy

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:DICDEF. While the article contains several sources, none of them provide substantial coverage of Kakistocracy itself and I can’t find evidence that it’s anything more than novel way to say the government is a pack of thieves and liars. RaiderAspect (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RaiderAspect (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a lot of in depth discussion, but there is certainly RS here to indicate the term is being used, and enoough context and usage indicate what its about. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG, based on being the subject of many reliable, independent, secondary sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ André Spicer (18 April 2018). "Donald Trump's 'kakistocracy' is not the first, but it's revived an old word". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
^ William L. Kovacs (2019). Reform the Kakistocracy; Rule by the Least Able Or Least Principled Citizens. Newman Springs Publishing. ISBN 9781640965140.
^ Abadjian, V. (2010). "Kakistocracy or the true story of what happened in the post-Soviet area". Journal of Eurasian Studies. 1 (2): 153–163.
^ Ornstein, N. (2017). "American Kakistocracy" (pdf). The Atlantic.
^ Gușă, A.R. (2021). "The Romanian Kakistocracy: The Public Sector's Ethos during the Post-communist Transition and its long-term impact" (pdf). Revista de Stiinte Politice (69).

SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe that any of the sources meet the substantial coverage requirement that GNG and DICDEF require. To quote from WP:DICDEF: such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. These sources all use the term Kakistocracy, explain its definition, and sometimes include some of its etymology - but they swiftly move on to their real subject, the political culture of various nations/governments. --RaiderAspect (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... so, the social and historical significance of the term then. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree with the comment above. Unlike e.g. kleptocracy, for which there is serious academic analysis of the term of what makes a regime kleptocratic, that is not true of kakistocracy, which is for all intents and purposes just a fancier way of saying idiocracy (a term that inspired a whole movie, but is still not notable as a political science term in itself). The "scope and use" of the term is very simple: it's bad government by idiots. It does not entail some broader reference to how the government functions, like kleptocracy, or its mode of decisionmaking, etc. There's not a whole lot else that can be said about it. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 19:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding a caveat to the above that there does appear to be a novel attempt to define kakistocracy systematically à la kleptocracy etc. in Abadjian 2010, a journal article by an independent researcher. The definition offered does not seem to have been replicated or examined elsewhere. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources describe this beyond just a definition and there is adequate content and context here for notability. Open to a merge target, but deletion isn't warranted here. Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough to go on here that the "just a dictionary definition" concern, while understandable, isn't fatal. Whatever ails the page, deletion doesn't seem like the right fix. XOR'easter (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election

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

This topic clearly passes WP:TOOSOON, and there is no reason behind the creation of this page. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article appears to be moved to Next Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election by MPGuy2824 Justi yaya 10:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Afd tags weren't present on the page when I moved it. If there is a way to undo this move, please do so. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 It cannot be possible. I started the AfD before you moved it. I started the AFD at 07:31, 1 February 2022 UTC, while you moved the page at 08:58, 1 February 2022‎ UTC. So it sums up that you moved the page after I started the AFD. Why? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Itcouldbepossible This was the state of the page just before my edit and subsequent move. As you can see, no afd tags were present (they were previously removed by the page creator). I should probably have checked page history, and wouldn't have done the move if i knew the Afd had already started. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Afd tags were re-added by me after the move, apologies for not noting this beforehand, thought the edit summary was enough. Justi yaya 12:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the AFD notice was removed by SAMAR FIRDOS ASHRAF (ASHRAF ALAM) with Special:Diff/1069233990. Sorry about the confusion caused D: Justi yaya 12:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justiyaya There is no need for you to apologize. The initial confusion was created by Samar. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 Ok. Sorry for accusing you wrongly. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: AfD header updated due to page move. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON Currently there is no coverage about this election in reliable sources. This article should be created when media and other major news broadcasters start covering this election. Nitesh003 (TALK) 11:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON. Indeed, it cannot even be said definitively as of now if the elections will be held in 2026. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Left 4 Dead (franchise). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Left 4 Dead (series)

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

A "series" with only 2 video games, a lot of the article either duplicates content from Left 4 Dead, is WP:OR or irrelevant. If the massive amounts of original research were removed it would be a relative stub and would probably remain so given the unlikelihood of a 3rd game now that Back 4 Blood exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article absolutely needs improvement, but that's not a reason for deletion. The series as a whole is clearly notable based on the sourcing, and an article covering the franchise as a whole allows for coverage of the cancelled sequel, spinnoffs, and comics. This is a classic case of WP:NOTCLEANUP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not convincing that the little information on permanently cancelled Left 4 Dead 3 cannot be moved to a section at the end of Left 4 Dead 2. The fact remains that it is a series with 2 games, the 2nd of which is so similar to the first that it literally incorporates all the first one's campaigns in it to the point where it's obsolete. There is not really any need for discussion of changes made throughout the series because there are hardly any. Comics can also be talked about in the Left 4 Dead article without WP:UNDUE weight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per Qwaiiplayer's comments above. I'm inclined to agree that even though this article definitely needs improvement, it seems notable enough given the sources already cited. And the parent article gives coverage to spin-offs and cancelled sequels as noted above. Spf121188 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But maybe move to Left 4 Dead (franchise) since it covers comics, spin-offs and other stuff as well.★Trekker (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd support this move. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both of the respective game's articles. There's long-standing consensus that two entries is not enough for a series article. NOTCLEANUP is irrelevant - the article is completely duplicative and redundant - all content can easily fit into the original game or sequel's article, because that's all there is to talk about. It has to fall into one or the other. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Left 4 Dead (franchise) The franchise includes more than just the two video games, and it's clearly a notable franchise overall. This article covers things that wouldn't make sense to cover in any of the articles about the individual entries in the franchise, such as the merchandise and the cancelled sequel, so it is not entirely duplicative or redundant. Mlb96 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How so exactly? The Midnight Riders songs are explicitly linked to Left 4 Dead 2 and have nothing to do with Left 4 Dead 1. Besides that, toys and action figures just cover a couple sentences and can be mentioned in passing in either or both of the articles without it being undue.

The Left 4 Dead 3 info can be mentioned in the Legacy section of Left 4 Dead 2, being the game that directly follows it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and support moving to (franchise). Yes it is only a 2-game series, but there's clearly additional media, and the combination of both games have cultural elements to them that are covered at that level. It is entirely possible to cover all that in only two articles, but this three-article approach makes it a bit easier for organizating the information. Certainly it is not an issue of notability with the series/franchise as a whole. --Masem (t) 13:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The articile has some issues, but worthy of an article TzarN64 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Albert. Whether a redirect is useful here and where to might need further discussion. Sandstein 09:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. Wilcocks

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

Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage, either provided or identifiable. Unlikely that any can be found, as per Olympedia "there is some confusion about the precise identity of this athlete" BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really know nothing about this person. Inclusion criteria also do not overcome the need for articles to meet GNG. Beyond this treating a team medal the same as an indvidual medal does not quite make sense to me. I would say the medal rule would suggest we have articles on the teams that won the medals if they can be sourced to reliable sources, but I do not think it reasonble to assume that every member of every team that won a medal is notable. This is especially true because in some competitions in some Olympics there were only 2 teams, so everyone in the competition was on a team that won a medal. That would also have applied if any competiton had only 3 teams. I have not exhastively studied the Olympics, but knowing there were some 2 team competitons makes me suspect there were 3 team ones as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator. There is not any coverage. MartinWilder (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having won a silver medal, he passes the updated WP:NOLYMPICS guidelines. At worst this should be redirected to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics. After looking at the Olympedia article it looks like the name may be spelled in some sources as Willcocks and at least this reference refers to the Devon player as J. Willcocks. If the subject's first name can be discerned we may have more luck establishing notability, but if we cannot find referencing to identify the subject's first name, correct spelling of his name, or even if we have the correct first initial I can't see how a standalone article is merited. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a member of a medal winning team. as per WP:NOLYMPICS guidelines. Jowaninpensans (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per GPL93. GNG has not been uncovered, and a suitable redirect exists. JoelleJay (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that an Alexander Wilcocks also exists, so a redirect for this term would not be suitable as it would be ambiguous. BilledMammal (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg P. Sullivan

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

Previously prodded and deleted; restored via a request from the subject through volunteer response team. This article struggles to meet notability guidelines for creative professionals and the general notability guideline. A biography of living people article with long term WP:SPA and WP:COI issues from multiple angles, and overall lacks depth in significant coverage in multiple published reliable secondary sources. What coverage that is provided and seems to exist, is largely trivial and tangential. Seddon ^talk 04:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage, particularly in the context of the COI. BilledMammal (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some coverage found on him via Google search results. Seemed to has had worked extensively. 2601:8D:8700:5E10:D5E0:983D:E9A4:B0E8 (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lacrosse at the 1904 Summer Olympics#St. Louis Amateur Athletic Association. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Albert. Sandstein 09:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. M. Woods

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

Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage, either provided or identifiable. Such coverage is unlikely to be found, if it even exists, as all we know about him is that he won silver in the 1904 Olympics, that his last name is Woods, and that his first initials are A. M. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Athletes presumed notable if they had won a metal at any modern (post 1896) summer Olympics. WP:NOLYMPICS While I can't find the discussion for reliability for the two sources, it shows up as green in User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter Justiyaya 07:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NSPORT, it doesn't replace WP:GNG, and so GNG must still be met. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:NSPORT: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1904 Olympics were hardly a normal Olympics with a true process of choosing competitotrs who were seen as the best avialble. Treating medaling there the same as medaling at other Olympics is to ignore the actual conditions under which they were held.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot the prior sentence: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia and the succeeding sentence: If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. But you knew this already. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the Missouri History Museum there are two books of the St. Louis Amateur Athletic Association. which good be help full: Annual report and [87]. Maybe somebody can visit the museum or ask for more details. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe either of those would be considered independent or reliable, though the annual report might contain information about him, such as his name or date of birth, that could be helpful in finding additional information if such information exists (the Annual handicap athletic meet seems less likely to contain such information, as I assume he was not disabled) BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering how many medals were won in 1904 by a men with a wooden leg, I am not sure I would assume the not disabled part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I contacted the Museum and good a scan of the 1904-1905 Report. I uploaded the report to archive.org. The only sentences about the Olympics are: "Second prize was taken in the Olympic championships. A match game was won against the best team from the Six Indian Tribes of Canada." So there no new information about the players. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really know nothing about this person. The 1904 Olympics were more just an addition to the 1904 WOrld's Fair then a true Olympics. Inclusion criteria also do not overcome the need for articles to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria at WP:NOLYMPICS as currently written. If that changes, then the issue can be revisited. Attempts to get around this resemble WP:WIKILAWYERING rather than following the intent of the policy. Canadian Paul
- He does, but per WP:NSPORTS WP:GNG must still be met. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of GNG, which trumps any subguidelines of NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lacrosse at the 1904 Summer Olympics. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidently fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Therapyisgood, per WP:ATD. I'm under the general impression that many participants in the early Olympiads did not receive a lot of attention. Of course, I'm happy to be proven wrong. gidonb (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. Dubois

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

Fails WP:GNG through lack of WP:SIGCOV, either provided or identifiable. Unlikely that significant coverage can ever be identified, as all we know about him is that he won Bronze and Silver at the 1900 Olympics, that his last name was Dubois, and his first initial was A. BilledMammal (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really know nothing about this person. The 1904 Olympics were more just an addition to the 1904 WOrld's Fair then a true Olympics. Inclusion criteria also do not overcome the need for articles to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more information is added about who he was. Gusfriend (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ~~redirect~~ to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#France (Mixed Team). WP:V, a core policy, provides: "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In this AfD, it is not contested that nothing is known about this man, not even his first name, except that he played in an Olympic rugby match. It is therefore not possible to write a WP:V-compliant biographical article about him. The "keep" opinions that only make reference to notability guidelines that establish a mere presumption of notability must be disregarded because they do not address the actual sourcing situation as established in this AfD. That a redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion is not contested. Sandstein 09:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to delete: I overlooked that there were reasonable arguments against a redirect. We don't therefore have consensus for one. People are free to create and then to contest such a redirect. Sandstein 16:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. Albert

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

Fails WP:GNG as it lacks WP:SIGCOV, and none was identifiable. Further, it is unlikely that significant coverage can ever be identified, as all we know about him is that he competed as part of the winning French team in the 1900 Summer Olympics, that his last name was Albert, and that his first initial was A. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really know nothing about this person. The 1904 Olympics were more just an addition to the 1904 WOrld's Fair then a true Olympics. Inclusion criteria also do not overcome the need for articles to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a gold medal winner, he passes the updated version of the WP:NOLYMPICS guidelines. At worst this page should be redirected to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per above. GNG is hardly to be expected for Olympians in this era. JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, gold medal winner clearly notable.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- How, exactly. What sources do we have that constitute Sigcov? It is time we stop falling back on unwaranted sports notability guidelines. The evidence is very clear that there were times when Olympic gold medal winners did not recieve sufficient coverage to justify articles. The allowance of notability for all gold medal winners was not based on actual evidence there was in general sourcing to justify articles, and so it is a very bad SNG. Also, the guidelines on sports SNGs make it clear that to actually justify keeping an article the subject still has to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect We don't even have this person's full name, and we're supposed to believe he gets an insta-exemption from passing GNG? No way. Now, the issue is that A) Rugby is a teamsport, so coverage of individual team-members is not 100% guaranteed and B) "Albert" is a common enough name that it's both B1) fruitless trying to find sources for this without access to specialist sources, as any search is likely to yield way too many false positives and B2) it would not necessarily mean that readers are actually looking for this specific person (Albert André could be a plausible target, if someone for some reasons got the two names there in the wrong order; and of course Albert (surname) lists at least two other persons who could reasonably be the target). And of course Even the Olympedia database used a source quite frankly says that "little is known about him". While NOLYMPICS might be a better guideline than it was before, it is still not in and of itself a criterion for inclusion (as the answer to the FAQ on NSPORTS says, GNG still needs to be met), and here there are good reasons to think that it is unlikely for GNG to be met, in this case even more than the mere age of the subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding redirects, one of those at the disambiguation page is also referred to as A. A. Albert, and a A. Albert Yuzpe also exists. I don't think we can reasonably redirect this page. BilledMammal (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ANYBIO as a gold medal is "a well-known and significant award or honor." There is no doubt that the subject received the medal WP:V. --Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the darn page you're citing? "People are likely to be notable if, not "guaranteed". This is a fine counter-example... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics Normally I'd argue that winning the first ever gold medal in Rugby in the Olympics, not only clearly meets the recently tightened WP:NOLYMPICS but is also a very clear pass of WP:NRUGBY. But we can't even identify the player's name here! But given that numerous sources list him as A. Albert it's very reasonable that it could be a search term, and redirect seems obvious to me. Nfitz (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RandomCanadian. Evidently fails GNG. Avilich (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that GNG is met by the sources found during the discussion. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peppy Martin

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

Unsuccessful candidate for political office. Thoroughly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Martin certainly fails NPOL (though not for a lack of trying!), but she does seem to pass the GNG. Newspapers.com gives me [88][89][90][91][92], all of which seem to be reliable and in-depth. This seems to exceed routine campaign coverage: the second source, for instance, writes two years after the gubernatorial election that Martin "embarrassed state GOP leaders with her poor showing and her campaign tactics. She drew just 22 percent of the vote, a smaller share than any previous Republican candidate for the office." And while most coverage focuses on the 1999 election, her frequent efforts to run for just about every political office in the Commonwealth of Kentucky ensure that she's not a "low-profile individual" for purposes of BLP1E. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1999 Kentucky gubernatorial election. Do not meet WP:NPOL independently. KidAd • SPEAK 18:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on new sources provided by Extraordinary Writ. Caphadouk (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG based on sources by Extraordinary Writ.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per evolving consensus that the reviews are sufficient and significant. Star Mississippi 01:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Morris (writer)

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

Non-notable author who wrote no notable books. None of the sources listed establish any notabilty for this subject. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree. Many of his works are widely-read tie-ins to very notable brands, such as TV shows The Crystal Maze and Knightmare, the board game Heroquest, or the comic/show Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. These books were published by major publishers and distributed worldwide. Kylotan (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need a few good articles about the author to show he meets notability. Publishing books is not enough, unless also he has best sellers. If you know of any articles about him and if he is best seller, please provide citations and improve the article. MartinWilder (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't actually how WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR work. Authors of notable works (which include books with RS reviews) are presumed notable. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kylotan: Just a question: given that you made no edits to either of the four articles aforementioned prior to the opening of this AfD discussion, and given that you were inactive for the past year and a half (welcome back!), how did you become aware of this deletion discussion? Pilaz (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well his only work we have an article on is an unsourced article. The notability guidelines for writers were imagined for writers whose work stands or falls on its own, where it either is the whole of the media franchise, or at least is the starting point of the media franchise. When dealing with a writer who writers tie in material with existing media franchises, I think we need to be more careful to find coverage that is actually about the writer, and not just incidental coverage of his or her products because they tie into an existing franchise. I was going to bring up how this is at times a quite complex issue. For example, I believe we do not have an article on the person who wrote the noveliszation of the 2013 film Man of Steel. We also do not have a biography on Gwenda Bond, who wrote a 3 part novel trilogy about Lois Lane (the article Lois Lane, under the novels section has quite a bit of sourced information on this series). I strongly suspect that the latter is more likely to be grounds to create an article on the writer, in large part because it is much more clearly the work of the writer alone. OK, anyone who mentions Lois Lane is of course building on a complex shared mythos, but the later is a work that only a little interacts with the existing mythos, It has Superman/Clark Kent and Perry White as characters, but their roles are very different. In the case of Superman/Clark Kent you know from the beginning you are seeing him (well some pursits would argue Superboy, he is not yet Superman I guess), but those names are not used. I do not remember if Clark Kent is ever used in the book but you know one of the characters is him, at least if you have any knowledge of any of the multitude of media that he has appeared in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prolific author. Appears to be enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Setting aside the fact that this is listed under Fictional elements (which should not be used for real world authors or works), the subject fails NBIO/NAUTHOR/GNG. He has an impressive list of titles, but they are very niche works and he himself did not attract any independent coverage, not to mention awards. He makes a living as an author but not all authors are notable. There is not even a single independent biography of him outside Wikipedia, our entry is cobbled from various primary sources like book credits, plus an occasional blog. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Piotrus, fails NBIO/NAUTHOR/GNG due not attracting independent, reliable significant coverage. Source 1 is a blurb and not independent (publisher of author), sources 2-4 are publications from the author, source 5 is a passing mention (p.228), sources 6-14 are blogs, unreliable SPS, and not about the author, source 15 is a publication from the author, source 16 is not archived anywhere, and source 17 is from the author too. Pilaz (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found numerous reviews of Dave Morris's books. I found one source that provided significant coverage about him:
1. Wilson, Graham A. (2020-05-01). "The use of using digital tools in developing branching narrative". Book 2.0. 10 (1): 124, 126–128. doi:10.1386/btwo_00023_1. ISSN 2042-8022. EBSCOhost 143508031. Retrieved 2022-02-06.
  The article notes on page 124:
  However, to understand the tools used by current gamebook authors and to what extent, or if indeed they used them at all, various authors were approached via gamebook groups on Facebook and asked about their writing and publishing experiences. The participating authors were Martin Noutch, Dave Morris, TroyAnthony Schermer and Dane Barrett. Dave published numerous works in the 1980s and 1990s, while the other authors have started publishing recently and are all currently engaged in writing gamebooks.
  The book notes on pages 126–127:
  Dave Morris is an established UK gamebook author, with an impressive catalogue of books to his name, authoring and co-authoring many series, including Golden Dragon ([34]), Dragon Warriors ([35]), Blood Sword ([37]) (Figure 5), Knightmare ([31]), Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles ([32]), Heroquest ([33]), Virtual Reality ([36]) and Fabled Lands ([38]). He has a cult following amongst gamebook fans, having been part of the Games Workshop team from which most early gamebook authors emerged.
  Dave's work ranges from simple linear branching narratives for children, as in the Knightmare and Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles series' (both accompanying TV shows) to more complex open-world gamebooks such as Fabled Lands, co-authored with Jamie Thomson ([38]). Despite being an admittedly 'old school' author, Dave had dabbled with a variety of digital tools:
Cunard (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to involvement in Dragon Warriors.Gusfriend (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sourcing. I admire his persistence in finding actual sourcing on a relatively niche author having a very common name. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Is one source enough to satisfy WP:NBIO these days? Pilaz (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the NAUTHOR pass, that isn't really the question, is it? Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - It actually is, since nobody here has argued that this author passes any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR (outside of WP:VAGUEWAVE). Pilaz (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Guardian and Kirkus offer unquestionably RS reviews of Morris's created work, satisfying NAUTHOR 3, and the originality of that app adaptation also seems to satisfy NAUTHOR 2. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh please. An app is a "significant new concept, theory, or technique"? Significant or well-known work with two reviews? One source for the subject of the article to pass WP:BASIC? Even if you were arguing for a WP:AUTHOR pass ~~(I think you're mistakingly calling it NAUTHOR, which just redirects to BIO)~~, WP:BIOSPECIAL demands a merge. A keep vote is pretty much against all logic here. Pilaz (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The GNG logic - reflected for example in WP:NBOOK - is that two RS reviews make a work notable. The logic of WP:AUTHOR is that the creators of notable works are themselves presumed to be notable - the threshold for a significant or well-known work for CREATIVE isn't any higher than that for NBOOK or the GNG. Two reviews meets it. And of you can't read the reviews for content and see the innovation they attribute to the app adaptation of Frankenstein, frankly, that's your own (CIR?) issue. The logic of WP:N is apparently something you grasp only vaguely, or you wouldn't say things like against all logic when the logic has already been (somewhat painfully) clarified for you. Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        One ≠ multiple. The definition for multiple is kept purposefully vague, and WP:3REFS is what I consider the bare minimum number of in-depth reviews. WP:BASIC still isn't met regardless (we're still at one short bio within an article, where Morris is an interviewee). If creating an app adaption of Frankenstein represents a "significant new concept, theory, or technique" (which of the three?), surely you'll be able to help me understand how it distinguishes itself from the scores of other recreations featured in Frankenstein in popular culture, and why the Guardian finds that Morris hasn't fully exploited the device's capabilities in order to reanimate the wild technological imaginings of the story as Shelley herself might have done. Questioning my arguments on WP:CIR grounds doesn't do your argument justice, so please remain WP:CIVIL: if you're going to make an unsubstantiated WP:VAGUEWAVE argument and are later asked to back it up with sources, it's not a personal attack against you. Pilaz (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason though that I brought up NBOOK is its specification (at a fairly high WP:CONLEVEL, certainly higher than your 3REFS reference) that two RS reviews establishes Notability. Not three, not five. Granted, you can quibble about whether the app adaptation is sufficiently different from a physical book for NBOOK to apply, but that would be to miss my point. My point is (1) there is no reason why a creative work would generally need more than two reviews to be Notable, and (2) if you are arguing that the app version of Frankenstein is sufficiently different from a book that NBOOK doesn't apply, that also strongly suggests that the new...technique being pioneered here has a stronger claim to significant originality than you are willing to recognize.

And if you wanted to know why I made an original assertion re: NAUTHOR rather than starting by offering reviews, you have just showed precisely why: when presented with a consistent and sourced argument that GNG is met (citing NBOOK as a clarifying example), you ignore site-wide consensus and double down on your personal preferences (such as 3REFS or your unusual reading of CREATIVE point 2). Also, as specified in NBIO, NBASIC does not need to be metal for a subject to be presumed notable (which was, in fact, the point I made and that you ignored at the top of this thread). Your idiosyncratic reading of BIOSPECIAL as a required practice simply doesn't follow either the contextual language of the guideline or WP practice, and arguing as though your own "unique" interpretation is the only one possible is, itself, UNCIVIL. And just so that we are clear, this was not a VAGUEWAVE - it was an explicit claim, which I subsequently backed up. So, nobody here has argued that this author passes any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR was simply a false statement on your part, though I assume it was a lapse and not deliberate. Your interjection, Oh please was simply rude, and A keep vote is pretty much against all logic here is UNCIVIL and even gaslight-ey when the logic has in fact be spelled out, as I had already done. So yes, you were engaged in clearly UNCIVIL behaviour, even if the apparent gaslighting was not intentional. My question about CIR may have been out of line, but the tendentiousness of your argumentation here is arguably more of a problem than simple CIR would be. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial: First, let me note that you've sidestepped the Guardian criticizing the app's deficiencies to argue that the app is a "new significant technique". Second, I think I'm starting to understand your argument better (please correct me if this is written inexactly): you believe that because a book passes NBOOK (SNG), then the author automatically passes AUTHOR (another SNG), and then that makes the author pass the GNG. Is that correct? Because not only do SNGs not work like that, SNGs are separate from the GNG. Why else would we have WP:BIOSPECIAL, for those rare cases where an author might fail WP:BASIC but pass any of the criteria of the SNG? WP:SNG also clearly indicates that the SNGs and GNGs are separate: articles which pass an SNG or [not and] the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article. When I wrote nobody here has argued that this author passes any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR (outside of WP:VAGUEWAVE) (you omitted that part of the sentence), I really meant that and I stand by it. Nobody had, previous to my comment, cited the SNG AND substantiated their claim with evidence. That is the definition of WP:VAGUEWAVE: just pointing to a policy without substantiating it with evidence (after you substantiated it, it was no longer a WP:VAGUEWAVE, obviously. I'm not even sure whether this needs spelling out). The oh please is quite evidently exasperation: when I wrote An app adaptation is a significant new concept, theory, or technique?, the exasperation was due to the fact that you didn't specify which of the three it was (all three? some? one only?). And it took you only two replies to get your answer: "a technique". Was I supposed to just go my merry way, and not ask which of the three it was? I still argue that an app adaptation is not a novel technique (I'm pretty sure that word was included in the SNG for those who, for example, pioneered the technique to separate barium from radium). Adding more vagueness to an already vague guideline doesn't help the discussion go forward, so please take the time to dig to the deepest level of clarity and reduce the vagueness from your arguments, as that will make your argument not only easier to understand, but also easier to support. Finally, regarding the final sentence A keep vote is pretty much against all logic here, it was the logical continuation of Even if you were arguing for a WP:AUTHOR pass WP:BIOSPECIAL demands a merge. But interpreting BIOSPECIAL is "UNCIVIL" apparently, so that means the whole final sentence is gaslighting. Unless it isn't, because BIOSPECIAL says that if you don't meet BASIC but meet AUTHOR, a merge should be performed. Just because you have a different interpretation of BIOSPECIAL doesn't mean your interpretation is UNCIVIL either. Please do not stop assuming good faith. I apologize for the "oh please", which could have been written differently to express my incomprehension with your argument, and stand by everything else that I have written. If you still think I'm being UNCIVIL, start a discussion at AN/I. If any other editors have read this far, I'd be interested to hear third opinions. Pilaz (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure everyone will appreciate that I am not going to respond to that whole WALLOFTEXT. But you seem to misunderstand what it means for the SNGs to be separate from the GNG. As one of the authors of the current text at WP:SNG, I assure you that SNGs and GNG are generally separate paths to Notability (and for biographies, NBASIC operates as a specification of the GNG while criteria like CREATIVE operate as SNGs). The text you keep harping on at BIOSPECIAL was, as far as I know, never intended by anyone as a rule for all cases where the BIO SNGs are met but BASIC is not; you and I have discussed this before at some length, and what is UNCIVIL is for you to pretend that only your interpretation of BIOSPECIAL exists, as though you have never heard a contrary view.

Also, I continue to he annoyed at your misstatements of my basic claims here. It is not that because a book passes NBOOK (SNG), then the author automatically passes AUTHOR (another SNG), and then that makes the author pass the GNG. The only part of that which is correct is that producing a Notable work makes its creator Notable per CREATIVE. But NBOOK is not simply an SNG - it preempts the GNG in specifying what counts as reliable sourcing for book Notability (two reviews). And the end of your paraphrase is sadly mistaken - the NAUTHOR SNG is a direct claim to WP:N Notability and does not "predict" GNG (or NBASIC) sourcing, which is a separate and parallel presumption of Notability. The text of WP:SNG and of WP:NBIO is as clear on this point as it can be, I think, given the heterogenous nature of SNGs and topic areas. Newimpartial (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I opened the ANI archive and, wow. I understand better why you don't want to drag me to the drama board, having barely scratched the surface of your presence in it. I wish I hadn't given you such an extended reply after you cherry-picked my text and went on a tirade about my uncivility here instead of my talk page or ANI (apparently a textual interpretation of a guideline is UNCIVIL). I wish I had known sooner that all of those accusations were made in bad faith and were simply ungrounded. Goodbye. Pilaz (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of accusations ... made in bad faith is itself a CIVIL violation. Please don't do that. And attacking me doesn't lend strength to your idiosyncratic interpretations of policy, nor is it relevant here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above particularly about meeting WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR and sourcing found by Cunard, and also per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several sources that indicate continued interest in several of his works, especially his Fabled Lands series. Guinness323 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:GNG meeting coverage, per the following source assessment table.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20081221192656/http://www.magnumopuspress.com/?page_id=15	His publisher			✘ No
"Open Box". White Dwarf. No. 74. Games Workshop. p. 8.			Assume not; the only statement sourced to this is "The following year, Morris and Oliver Johnson created the Dragon Warriors role-playing game"	? Unknown
Designers & Dragons. Mongoose Publishing			In the first volume, coverage is limited to stating that he had written a series called Dragon Warriors, and another called Fabled Lands. In the third volume, coverage is limited to stating that James Wallace had obtained a licence to to Morris' Dragon Warriors. The second and fourth volumes contain no coverage.	✘ No
Arcane Presents the Top 50 Roleplaying Games 1996". Arcane			Assume not; only coverage sourced to it is about a game made by Morris, not Morris.	? Unknown
https://entropymag.org/session-report-fabled-lands-and-beginnings/		Seems to accept reader submissions	Significant coverage of "Fabled Lands"; passing mentions of Morris in the context of his role in creating it.	✘ No
https://spielkritik.com/2019/01/29/playing-by-the-books-part-i-gamebooks-und-die-open-world-der-fabled-lands/			Single, passing mention	✘ No
https://bit-tech.net/reviews/gaming/pc/fabled-lands-the-mmo-that-never-was/1/	~ Significant quotations from Morris		Content is entirely about Fabled Lands, not Morris	✘ No
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1299620/view/2368278345865697462	Post by a company licenced by Morris to create a video game of the Fabled Lands			✘ No
https://www.megara-entertainment.com/		Appears to be a self-published video game news	No mention of Morris	✘ No
http://mirabilis-yearofwonders.blogspot.com/	Published by Morris	A blog		✘ No
http://mirabilis-yearofwonders.com/	Published by Morris		Passing mention of Morris	✘ No
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id405743224?mt=8	"Morris founded electronic publisher Mirus Entertainment and published Mirabilis for the iPad"			✘ No
https://www.tekumel.com/eoasw.html	Written/Edited by Morris		Passing mentions of Morris as editor	✘ No
https://www.librarything.com/author/morrisdave		WP:USERGEN	List of publications	✘ No
Game Architecture and Design, by Andrew Rollings and Dave Morris	Written by Morris			✘ No
http://www.afi.com/education/dcl/roster/SearchResult.aspx?text=law+%26+order			Dead link, no archive	? Unknown
"The use of using digital tools in developing branching narrative"	~ Three paragraphs of direct quotes discussing the digital tools used by Morris		Many passing mentions. The sections that go beyond this are the three direct quotes, and the second of the two paragraphs quoted by Cunard, but this paragraph, simply listing the works he has created, is not WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dave-morris/frankenstien-interactive-novel-divided-self_b_1456960.html	Written by Morris	Blog		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fascinating, but creating a table doesen't make the claims an editor makes based on their own POV any more authoritative becaus they are presented in tabular form. There is no basis in policy to set the bar of WP:SIGCOV where this editor thinks it ought to be. Newimpartial (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to dispute my assessments; which ones do you disagree with? BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ones departing most clearly from policy are your evaluations of the Designers & Dragons and "Use of using digital tools " sources. You also don't appear to have done a satisfactory BEFORE, and don't give any apparent recognition to NAUTHOR considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in "The use of using digital tools in developing branching narrative" does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG; the only independent coverage of any length is Dave Morris is an established UK gamebook author, with an impressive catalogue of books to his name, authoring and co-authoring many series, including Golden Dragon (Morris and Johnson 1984–85), Dragon Warriors (Morris and Johnson 1985–86), Blood Sword (Morris et al. 1987–88) (Figure 5), Knightmare (Morris 1988–94), Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (Morris 1990–91), Heroquest (Morris 1993), Virtual Reality (Morris and Smith 1995–96) and Fabled Lands (Morris and Thomson 1995–96). He has a cult following amongst gamebook fans, having been part of the Games Workshop team from which most early gamebook authors emerged. and Dave’s work ranges from simple linear branching narratives for children, as in the Knightmare and Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles series’ (both accompanying TV shows) to more complex open-world gamebooks such as Fabled Lands, co-authored with Jamie Thomson (Morris and Thomson 1995–96). Despite being an admittedly ‘old school’ author, Dave had dabbled with a variety of digital tools:. Most of this is made up of a bibliography, and of the rest all we can say is that His work ranges from linear branching narratives to complex open-world gamebooks, and has a cult following amongst gamebook fans due to his previous work with Games Workshop. He has used a number of digital tools; if that and simple facts are all we can get out of this work, then it isn't WP:SIGCOV.

I've also reviewed "Designers and Dragons" using the links provided by Pilaz, and it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:GNG - see updated table.

And no, I didn't do a WP:BEFORE. I didn't nominate the article for deletion, and at this point I assume all sources that could meet WP:GNG have been provided. As for WP:NAUTHOR, it is unclear whether Fabled Lands is a significant or well-known work, and even if it is WP:NBIO states that People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included - and if we cannot find coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, then it should not be included. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NBIO, like the GNG itself, is a presumption of Notability (and inclusion) - the GNG is not a universal formula for Notability (or inclusion) nor is it a requirement for all articles. Perhaps you should read WP:SNG.

Also, in your table, you appear to be requiring the sources to discuss the article's subject apart from their Notable work to contribute to the Notability of the subject in terms of SIGCOV. There is no basis for this in WP policy or guidelines, however. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but it does not guarantee that a subject should be included. And sources that discuss the author in the context of their work count towards notability, such as an article that discusses how Tolkien's background contributed to the lore of the Lord of the Rings, but sources that only discuss the work do not; these sources are the latter, not the former. BilledMammal (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as bizarre (and lacking grounding in WP policy) to interpret a paragraph documenting the subject's contributions to a field as only discussing the work and not the author. Any independent RS that can be used to make relevant statements about the article's subject contribute to its Notability with respect to SIGCOV. There is simply no basis in WP policy or guidelines to require sources akin to an article that discusses how Tolkien's background contributed to the lore of the Lord of the Rings so that Notability can be established (no slight against such sources, of course, which are valuable). Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is because we cannot write an article about the creator with such sources; if we tried to write an article about Tolkien using sources that only discuss the Lord of the Rings, then we would have an article about the Lord of the Rings, and not an article about Tolkien. BilledMammal (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to Designers and Dragons that you could incorporate into your analysis. Mentions of Morris can be found in the second edition, first and third volume. Pilaz (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, done. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal: sorry, I just realized I should have also linked the second and fourth volume for transparency's sake, although he does not appear in either. Pilaz (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, updated. BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An author's notability is in his books, his have been widely reviewed, including in The Guardian. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED; not every creator of a notable work is notable, and not every work of a notable creator is notable. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - That isn't the way NOTINHERITED works, though: it dictates that the works of a Notable author are not necessarily notable, but it is not intended to offer an opinion on the other direction of travel. NAUTHOR (and other SNGs) are clear on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable. BilledMammal (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - It isn't correct to interpret NOTINHERITED the same way in relation to NCORP as to NAUTHOR, however, regardless of any loose writing to the contrary. In fact, you seem to be citing an essay against a guideline, which isn't a good look IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Then I will cite WP:N: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The topic in this case is Dave Morris, not Fabled Lands. BilledMammal (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        So that excludes sources that are only about Fabled Lands, but includes sources that discuss Dave Morris as creator of Fabled Lands. We can most certainly write a policy-compliant article based on sources of the latter kind. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        If their discussion of Morris amounts to significant coverage, yes. But that coverage was not found in any of the sources in the article. BilledMammal (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hate to get in the way of a good two way argument about my opinion, but somehow feel as if I should respond at least once. NOTINHERITED is generally for authors of a single work (and to be honest, not always then; we have several articles about authors of a single work). In this case, though I appreciate the platypus's (echidna's? are there any others?) point, Morris has written so much that I humbly think the cumulative coverage is sufficient. Feel free carry on. --GRuban (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the arguments and policy points raised by those arguing for keep far more persuasive than those arguing for delete. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are well past the GNG. Designers and Dragaons and the Digital Tools book are about enough, but with the rest we're in good shape. Hobit (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Designers and Dragons" are about enough? Which mentions Morris three times, to tell us that he wrote a series called Dragon Warriors, that he wrote a series called Fabled Lands, and that James Wallace had obtained a licence to to Morris' Dragon Warriors? I realize that there are different definitions of significant coverage, but "Designers and Dragons" cannot reasonably be considered sufficient coverage of Morris. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't see those RS statements as relevant to Morris, or usable for this article? That dismissal doesn't sound "reasonable" to me - this source looks like a clear SIGCOV pass. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are relevant and usable, but that isn't the definition of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - A lot of nonsense gets written about WP:SIGCOV, mostly at AfD. The actual guideline definition of Significant Coverage is simply that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. That's it, and the NOR requirement is part amd parcel to the source being "relevant and usable" for the article. The source need not make a claim the article's subject is significant, nor need it be of any particular length or (analytical) depth - as some editors constantly insist at AfD for no policy-compliant reason. Newimpartial (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Telling us that he authored two works, and that a James Wallace obtained a licence to one of those works, is "in detail"? BilledMammal (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        There is more information in each source than you have just laid out (starting with what the works in question in fact are). In fact, the difference between your paraphrase and the actual RS just might represent the difference between something that is not "in detail" (your paraphrase, which says nothing usable) and something that is "in detail" (the actual sources, which say something usable). Again, "in detail" here essentially means "in sufficient detail to use in the article without OR". Newimpartial (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Conventionally, in practice, an author typically survives per WP:NAUTHOR if they have at least two items that pass WP:NBOOK. The reviews accomplish that here. In addition to the reviews, Morris’s Frankenstein app probably passes the NBOOK criteria for being the subject of instruction at multiple schools, as I have personally taught it in an undergrad English class. NAUTHOR, like WP:NPROF, is a little unusual as an SNG because it does explicitly allow persons to derive notability from coverage of their works even if the sourcing only discusses those works rather than discussing the person directly. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as they have written multiple noteworthy books.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Devolution

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

Article is cobbled together from various bits and pieces of Welsh history, but they do not add up to an article about "devolution", which is a somewhat technical term--and as the very first reference makes clear, that process as such started in 1999. Treating the entire history of Wales as a prelude to this recent phenomenon is a violation of SYNTH. This article is redundant to Devolution_in_the_United_Kingdom#Wales, and the links in there. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just deleted a large section of the page which is perhaps not as relevant, like you say to the title of "Welsh Devolution". I feel that the content of the page is much more fitting of the title. Thank you for drawing my attention to this. The content of the page now fits the title well so please do not consider deleting. I have worked very hard on this. Thank you for your time.TG11TG15 (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite flabbergasted by this one. Obviously this is a very notable topic that should be covered in it's own article. AFD is not clean-up nor is Welsh devolution an idea that started in 1999. John Gilbert Evans wrote two books detailing the history of Welsh devolution from 1937-1998 [93], [94]. The topic has been also been covered extensively in other academic literature: [95] [96] [97]. Per WP:THREE, I'll leave it at those examples so as not to waste people's time. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an acceptable SPINOFF from Devolution in the United Kingdom#Wales on the basis of summary style: the UK devolution page is a broader overview article, and doesn't/shouldn't cover Welsh devolution in the depth a stand-alone article can. Stumbled across this by accident as I reverted the original creator's edits to a different article. Most of the remaining C18/19th section looks relevant, as does nearly everything from 1949 onwards, and it carves out a content niche not directly covered elsewhere. Clean-up is required, but there's plenty of potential for future expansion. I don't believe it meets the threshold for WP:TNT. Jr8825 • Talk 04:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous two arguments (and also rather surprised this would be nominated). I would actually restore some of the material up to the early modern period sections that established Wales as legally part of "England" and the suppression of the Welsh language, at least as some kind of short summary of the starting position. At the moment, it seems like Wales appeared out of nowhere, or was always legally part of England.OsFish (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - easily notable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the constructive comments. Please feel free helping me out with tidying the article up or giving me any further recommendations for improvement.TG11TG15 (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added prehistoric and medieval headings with brief summaries as per feedback. Any other suggestions? Thank youTG11TG15 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clear from Special:Diff/1069182402 versus Wales#Roman era (Special:PermanentLink/842435878#Roman era) and Special:Diff/1069186134 versus Special:Diff/1050873964 (Welsh independence#21st century), to name just two, that you are copying within Wikipedia without attribution. Shuffling about already-written content from other people does not help to make a case that this is an original article on an as-yet-uncovered subject, and belies your claim to have "worked very hard". As someone who has written articles from scratch, I can assure you that what you are doing is a far cry from working very hard. You are passing off other people's work as your own. You've not been putting in any work at all.
  This probably explains these, which I noticed first:
  - Only capitalize proper nouns. wikt:devolution
  - Always give the page number when citing books.
  - Including the Roman Empire but missing out the Wales Act 1978, the Kilbrandon Commission, and the 1979 Welsh devolution referendum is not following the scholarship of legal/political experts on the subject, who all start by at least summarizing them.
  - Read some books:
    - Williams, David (1998). "Devolution: The Welsh perspective". In Beatson, J. (ed.). Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom: Practice and Principles. Hart Publishing. ISBN 9781901362848.
    - Williams, David (1975). "Wales and Legislative Devolution". In Calvert, Harry (ed.). Devolution. Professional Books.
    - Foulkes, David Llewhelin; Jones, James Barry; Wilford, Rick; Foulkes, J. Barry, eds. (1983). The Welsh Veto: The Wales Act 1978 and the Referendum. University of Wales Press. ISBN 9780708308318.
    - Bogdanor, Vernon (2001). "Wales". Devolution in the United Kingdom. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192801289.
- Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies for not citing the previous authors. I was not aware the wikipedia authors were cited. I assumed that article reference only was required. I'll avoid this in future. Thanks for pointing out. TG11TG15 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC) I'll just contribute from scratch from now on. TG11TG15 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the first thing you need to do here is decide if "Welsh devolution" is a thing that started in 1999 or not, and adjust your sourcing accordingly. And what is "Devolution from the Romans"? Maximus just left--your source says nothing about him "devolving" anything. And that's the problem I have with the article: as far as I'm concerned, 90% of it has nothing to do with any kind of devolution--it's simply the history of Wales as an area/nation/state/whatever. User:Jr8825 says that the "larger" (UK) article needn't go into all the detail, and that may be true--but the current article doesn't do that either, it just pulls in anything. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Dharma

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. No major awards or achievement. He has written a few translations of Indian mythology books, but none of them seem to be notable. There are a few book reviews, other sources are self published, dependent and connected with ISKCON. In previous AfD, it was claimed that his books have been translated to other languages. First those are translations of the original Indian work. Secondly those translations serve as propaganda material for ISKCON, which funds their printing. It cannot be taken as a sign of notability. Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet the guidelines for notability: His work has been cited in academic texts ([98] , [99], [100], [101]) and journals ([102]), and his Mahabharata, at least, seems to have been reviewed in a number of publications other than the Guardian link in the article (India Today, the Quest, etc.). Hardly seems like the stuff of "propaganda" to me. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is best known as the author of popular literary adaptations of ancient Indian epics. --E.Im anoff ^Snatch 20:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — E.Imanoff (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Elshadiman (talk · contribs). [reply]
Says who? All translators of Indian epics are not notable. No evidence his work is popular. Venkat TL (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His work might have received coverage, but notability is not inherited, so that coverage does not apply to him. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "Dwyer & Cole (2007)" reference in the article is a bit misleading, as the source is "Notes on Contributors" section of the book (one of the essays in the collection is by the subject). The other mentions found above are in similarly in bibliography sections. Guardian article (Meek 1999) is on the book he wrote and doesn't focus on the subject. hemantha (brief) 18:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My BEFORE failed to find anything and Hemantha analysis below demolishes the references in the article. Seems like the subject fails NAUTHOR/GNG. Not all authors are notable, and translators are even less likely to be so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transportistas Unidos Mexicanos

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

Fails WP:CORP. I can find no substantive third-party reliable sources regarding the firm, only LinkedIn and various directory listings. There is no corresponding article on es-wiki. Sable232 (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Sable232 (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I found [103][104][105][106][107]. I doubt an article could be written with those sources, though. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leimin Duong

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

Fails WP:BIO. Could not find significant coverage. Establishing a beer company or being on 100 Women (BBC) doesn't confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 05:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 05:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 05:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. _{دَستخَط،}اِفلاق ^{(کَتھ باتھ)} 08:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gnews has one hit in a Dutch/Belgian newspaper and one in Vietnamese. She founded a brewery but hasn't risen above others who have done something similar it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Compared to Helana Sawires I think there is not quite enough yet, and the subject does get a bit more than a passing mention in multiple languages, hence TOOSOON. There is some sourcing available showing some leaning towards BASIC but there is not enough. Aoziwe (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The coverage in The Daily Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald passes IRS, but possibly it's not enough to meet GNG, I've certainly seen worse refs and the pages survived-- I could go either way on this one. Cabrils (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarathar Sangam of North America

AfDs for this article:

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

The only reliable source here does not talk about the organization itself (ctrl-f sangam)/its history and is more of a person's account of one event. Per guidelines shown here, an organization is "notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The other sources of the article are not independent of the subject and a Google search does not bring any reliable sources either (which is why the article would have original research). Also note, that the article was previously deleted here. DareshMohan (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Falis WP:GNG, nothing comes up in google news. - SUN EYE 1 07:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Sasse

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

Questionable coverage found. Originally created by a user that has been banned for paid editing and sockpuppeting. Nominating rather than PRODing because he has been published and since I'm not familiar with the field, I'm asking other editors to see if he passes WP:ACADEMIC. BriefEdits (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when a source is "local x's book does y" you are heavily dealing with the type of local inserest stories that do not show notability. We should also do all we can to avoid Wikipedia turning into Who's Who, which means ridding it of articles created for pay from the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the original heavily-promotional wording has been trimmed back, this still appears to have no purpose other than promotion. We have no evidence of academic, author, or general notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources fail GNG, most just link to self-published material or the the individuals book itself. Only one appears to be independent, but probably lacks notability due to just being a local paper. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leaning delete, simply seems to be a long-time bariatric surgeon. I get one or two hits in GScholar that could be him, first initial matches. The paid creation/sockpupuet doesn't help with the notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.thechicagoweeklynews.com/meet-ishell-vaughan-the-filmmaker-who-turned-a-photography-hobby-into-a-six-figure-career/

[2] ttps://www.theusareporter.com/meet-ishell-vaughan-the-filmmaker-who-turned-a-photography-hobby-into-a-six-figure-career/

[3] ttps://www.thenewyorkfinance.com/meet-ishell-vaughan-the-filmmaker-who-turned-a-photography-hobby-into-a-six-figure-career/

[4] ttp://www.saltlakecitydaily.com/meet-ishell-vaughan-the-filmmaker-who-turned-a-photography-hobby-into-a-six-figure-career/

[5] ttps://www.bigbostonnews.com/from-baby-showers-to-1m-views-filmmaker-ishell-vaughans-secret-to-success/

[6] ttps://hustleworld.net/from-baby-showers-to-1m-views-filmmaker-ishell-vaughans-secret-to-success/

[7] ttp://www.calabasasdaily.com/from-baby-showers-to-1m-views-filmmaker-ishell-vaughans-secret-to-success/

[8] André Spicer (18 April 2018). "Donald Trump's 'kakistocracy' is not the first, but it's revived an old word". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 January 2022.

[9] William L. Kovacs (2019). Reform the Kakistocracy; Rule by the Least Able Or Least Principled Citizens. Newman Springs Publishing. ISBN 9781640965140.

[10] Abadjian, V. (2010). "Kakistocracy or the true story of what happened in the post-Soviet area". Journal of Eurasian Studies. 1 (2): 153–163.

[11] Ornstein, N. (2017). "American Kakistocracy" (pdf). The Atlantic.

[12] Gușă, A.R. (2021). "The Romanian Kakistocracy: The Public Sector's Ethos during the Post-communist Transition and its long-term impact" (pdf). Revista de Stiinte Politice (69).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]