Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 22 June 24 >

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. The title will also be protected against further re-creation due to multiple previous deletions and the apparent abuse of multiple accounts in the process. RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moises Lino e Silva

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

The article is almost entirely based on a single primary source (a book the author published). A Google search yields social media and college profiles, and the book that our article mentions. Doesn't seem to agree with WP:N. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article has been built since 2018. The author is an important academic in his field. He has delivered talks and had his work reviewed in the most prestigious institutions around the world. See some examples below:
Here Moises Lino e Silva can be seen in dialogue with the very famous theorist Jack Halberstam: https://www.socialdifference.columbia.edu/events-1/2023/5/25/queer-aqui-together-in-hard-times-rio-de-janeiro
MASP is the most prestigous museum of art in Brazil: https://masp.org.br/palestras/arte-religiao-e-ecologia-na-floresta-sagrada-de-oxum-nigeria
Talk at the oldest Swedish university: https://www.engagingvulnerability.se/seminars-spring2023/
Talk at the one of the most prestigious universities in the UK: https://www.instagram.com/p/CrA_y4PO8fv/?img_index=1
Otherwise, he is the author of several other works and articles, including some in partnership with Harvard University: https://www.routledge.com/Freedom-in-Practice-Governance-Autonomy-and-Liberty-in-the-Everyday/Silva-Wardle/p/book/9780367873325 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/event/sacred-groves-secret-parks-orisha-landscapes-in-brazil-and-west-africa/
A recent article in the general Brazilian press highlights the importance of his work: https://queer.ig.com.br/2023-04-19/como-e-ser-lgbtqia--nas-favelas.html 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Chicago Press is among the most prestigious academic presses in the world in anthropology. 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book in question has been reviewed by DRCLAS/Harvard: https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/a-review-of-minoritarian-liberalism-a-travesti-life-in-a-brazilian-favela/ 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your arguments are mostly not based on the actual applicable policies and guidelines, namely WP:N and WP:NACADEMIC. I will address them one by one:
  • The age of the article is not relevant for determining notability.
  • YouTube is WP:UGC and not a suitable source for establishing notability. This is also a WP:PRIMARY source.
  • The MASP source does not provide in-depth coverage of the individual, it only lists him as the speaker at an event. Arguably also WP:PRIMARY.
  • The same applies for the EV source.
  • Instagram is WP:UGC and not appropriate for establishing notability.
  • "Partnership with Harvard University" does not establish notability; notability is not WP:INHERITED by association. The same applies to association with the University of Chicago Press.
  • The Queer IG article does not cover Lino e Silva in depth, but only tangentially to its primary topic. See also WP:SIGCOV to read about significant coverage.
  • A book review does not establish notability per se, especially because it is unclear how much editorial oversight and fact-checking they are subject to. However, I agree that this is at least something.
Actualcpscm (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SAPIENS Magazine has published his research: https://www.sapiens.org/culture/minoritarian-liberalism/


Delete. The prevailing sentiment in the comments above seems to be that this is a highly influential scholar, someone who has conducted impactful research. That may be the case, but we seem to be forgetting something important: this impact needs to be demonstrated through coverage in reliable secondary sources. WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 does list academic impact as establishing notability, but it must be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources." None of the sources we have seen so far fulfil this requirement. Intuitively, it does seem that this researcher has received some attention, but that needs to be backed up by reliable sources. As long as the arguments for notability of this subject are based on hypothetical fulfilment of WP:NACADEMIC derived from editor interpretation and opinion, as opposed to independent sources, notability is not established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actualcpscm (talk • contribs)

Keep. This is a noteworthy academic. I wish we could foster younger intellectuals, Latino academics, and from the Global South. Moises Lino e Silva seems to be among them. I wish our community would be more constructive in this case. Instead of deletion, we could work together to make this article stronger. For example, I just found another review of the author's main book:

https://allegralaboratory.net/minoritarian-liberalism-a-travesti-life-in-a-brazilian-favela/
I also found a review of the author's book "Freedom in Practice" in the JRAI (the most prestigious anthropology journal in the UK):
https://www.academia.edu/44956086/Parisolis_Review_of_Freedom_in_Practice_Governance_Autonomy_and_Liberty_in_the_Everyday_ Gdohgsd (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) — Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
  • Delete. No pass yet of WP:Prof on tiny GS cites for this adjunt (not full) professor. Maybe in ten years time: Salt until then.Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    This information is not accurate. Professor adjunto is the equivalent of Assistant or Associate Professor with tenure in the USA. Once again, there is a bias here against Latin American scholars. Please, re-consider it. Gdohgsd (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC) — Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
    The point wasn‘t tenure or lack thereof, but the fact that this isn‘t a full professorship, not to mention a named chair as described in NACADEMIC. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or if kept we must trim the promotional pull quotes and bad sources. Of the listed reviews for Minoritarian Liberalism, Gangwar appears to be a personal blog of a grad student, the Jarrin ReVista review appears reliable, jornalbairrosnet may be reliable, cultura930 appears reliable but not very in-depth, and I'm skeptical of the reliability of queer.ig.com and gay.blog.br. The publisher's own site is definitely not independent or reliable for promotional quotes about its own book. So that's one good review (ReVista) and a lot of maybes or worse. The listed but not linked review for Freedom in Practice is doi:10.1111/1467-9655.13089; it is reliable, but I didn't see any others, and the book is apparently a conference proceedings, co-edited with Huon Wardle, not an authored work. With one in-depth reliable review for one book, and one reliable review for an edited collection, this is below my threshold for WP:AUTHOR notability. The fact that there is only one authored book in play makes it unlikely that we would have enough even if more reviews for those books could be shown reliable and in-depth. And there seems no sign of any other WP:PROF-related notability. If we could find enough reliably published and in-depth reviews of Minoritarian Liberalism (not necessarily in English) we might instead consider having an article on the book and redirecting to it, but I'm not convinced that we have enough yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not sure you understand how academia works in terms of notability.

There was a vote from Mles2022 here, but it has been removed following WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Gdohgsd. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a valuable article about a Brazilian author and scholar who has published a single-authored book in English with a leading peer-reviewed academic press in the United States (University of Chicago Press). His book has also been translated into Portuguese. Moises Lino e Silva has also co-edited an anthology published with another leading English-language academic press (Routledge). The Wikipedia article on Moises Lino e Silva is well written and informative and all of the information is accurate. It can be improved by adding sections.--Lawrlafo (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.
      1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
      2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
      3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
      4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
      5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
      6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
      7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
      8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
      Gdohgsd (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC) — Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
  • I was asking Lawrlafo. But there is no sign whatsoever that the subject meets any of the criteria of NPROF. I am uncertain what Lawrlafo was suggesting for notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject clearly meets the first criteria of NPROF, that being "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This is demonstrated by the prestige of the peer-reviewed publications (appearing with University of Chicago Press and Routledge), the fact that the most recent book has been translated into Portuguese and the publication covered by the Brazilian press, and by the reviews and media coverage the books have received internationally (United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil), including in peer-reviewed journals. The reviews and media coverage are fully identified in the references of the article.--Lawrlafo (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Peer-review publications are not independent sources for the purposes of establishing notability of their authors. Translation of a book is a weird one to point out; lots of books are translated, it doesn't have to mean anything for notability of their authors. The problem of the reviews is as Russ Woodroofe mentioned: if anything, they establish notability of the specific work they are concerned with, not its author. SIGCOV of a book is not SIGCOV of its author. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have continued to expand the article, integrating sources regarding the visibility the scholar is achieving (for example, appearing on television), being invited to visiting professorship at Harvard University in the Fall 2023, and increasing media coverage of his work. The scholar's impact in Brazil and internationally is based on his publications but also transcends the publications.--Lawrlafo (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comments above. Lawrlafo (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Arguments this meets WP:NPROF criterion 1 are clearly incorrect. Per Russ Woodroofe, the subject might meet WP:NAUTHOR but for lack of evidence of reviews. At this point notability is not established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Don't let the presence of sockpuppets in this AFD obscure the fact that there has been a lot of changes to this article since it was originally nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per David Eppstein. Also salt. This is the third recreation of this article. It's a obvious case of WP:SPAM.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly contest and fully disagree with the claim that this article is a case of WP:SPAM. As I have indicated above, this is an extremely well researched article on a person who has clearly met WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. Lino e Silva's concept of "minoritarian liberalism" is an important original scholarly contribution as recognized in the endorsements of the book, its publication with a leading peer-reviewed academic press in the United States, the reviews the book has received in numerous independent reliable sources, the print and media interviews with the author, the translation of the book into Portuguese, and the significant media coverage of the translation in Brazil. The visibility and institutional recognition the author has received transcends his first two published books (Freedom in Practice and Minoritarian Liberalism) and now encompasses a new research project on Nigeria. There are no compelling reasons to delete this article on lack of notability for a person who has already made a major impact to the fields of queer studies, Brazilian (and, more broadly, Latin American and Caribbean) studies, and social sciences, as documented in numerous independent reliable sources in English and Portuguese.----Lawrlafo (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Liz that there has been a lot of positive changes to this article since it was originally nominated. It has been completely rewritten using a vast amount of impressive references. It now meets at least two of the necessary conditions for academic notability: 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources; 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:6591:47ED:3074:2E1D:9A28:821C (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — 2804:14C:6591:47ED:3074:2E1D:9A28:821C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment The IP repeats claims made above that the subject meets NPROF criterion 1. I remain firm in my view this is not so. Their Scopus profile is here: [2] 8 documents, 20 citations, and an h index of 2 is about as far short of meeting criterion 1 as could be. This is not a notable academic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the Humanities and Social Sciences do not follow the same logic as the Natural Sciences in terms of notability. A quantitative measure of citations alone is not enough to decide anything. If you need numbers, I just read something remarkable earlier in this thread:Minoritarian Liberalism is available in more than 140 different libraries around the world: https://www.worldcat.org/title/1298388876 and Freedom in Practice is available in 115 different libraries: https://www.worldcat.org/title/964527538 Given everything I've researched so far, this is a notable scholar in the Humanities and Social Sciences. 2804:14C:6591:47ED:25C7:14D1:AF84:30BD (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)— 2804:14C:6591:47ED:25C7:14D1:AF84:30BD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It is true that the humanities generally have very low citation rates. However, we cannot use the absence of citations as evidence of notability. Instead, in the humanities we usually go by book reviews rather than journal citations. However, as analyzed above, that falls short in this case as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant if the humanities have different citation patterns to the sciences because we always compare like with like: physics with physics, philosophy with philosophy but never physics with philosophy. The subject's citation record is inadequate even for the humanities. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Rock 'N' Roll Comics. ✗plicit 14:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles Experience

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

Poorly source article about a comic book of questionable notability. UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep here among participating editors, especially given all of the work that has been done on the article since its nomination. I hope all of the sources mentioned in this discussion have found their way into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Cherkasova

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

NN journalist and ecologist. All assertions of notability are of "worked for/on X" except for a single event, so falls under WP:BIO1E. UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://greencleanguide.com/maria-cherkasova-ecologist-and-journalist/ Yes No generic content farm ~ generic biography ✘ No
http://www.seu.ru/members/cnep.htm No published by the organisation which Cherkasova allegedly co-founded Yes Yes ✘ No
https://ecologyofrussia.ru/zhenshchiny-za-prirodu/ Yes No generic content farm No only one short biography from a list ✘ No
http://zmdosie.ru/chitalnyj-zal-zm/rekomenduem/819-posledstviya-raketno-kosmicheskoj Yes ? No passing mention ✘ No
https://www.svoboda.org/a/24197748.html Yes Yes the only actually reliable source I could find No one short quote from Cherkassova ✘ 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}}.
All the best, Akakievich (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually disagree about Ecology of Russia, at the bottom of the page they say it is an independent media. I do not see why it is not reliable. It is indeed one bio out of the list, but I was able to confirm most of the text of the article using it. In addition, it talks about awards, and, indeed, I was able to confirm one of the awards by the UN press release (now all added to the article). I am leaning keep. Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was uncharitable in my assessment, I just don't think a content farm that is unlikely to verify anything they print is particularly reliable. All the same, WP:BASIC requires at least two independent, reliable sources, so this alone does not make Cherkasova notable. Akakievich (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is also one of the people profiled in the 1998 book Women pioneers for the environment, which is now listed in the Further Reading section of the article. There are 6 pages of details on Cherkasova in that book. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per given the above book as well as [4][5] which both have sigcov. Additionally, they've had some success in academic publication themselves: [6] has 91 citations on google scholar, [7] has 1. Seem to be more, but I'm satisfied. —siroχo 19:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berystede

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

NN hotel, fails WP:NBUILD. Only sources are about sale of the company, not the building. UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't see what the claimed 'non-trivial' cites are, but I cannot see how this thoroughly unremarkable hotel is notable. There is no claim that the building itself is notable, and I expect that the company drone who assembled this cringing festival of snobbery in an attempt to make their dull business seem appealing would have mentioned it had this been the case.TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. A factor that works against notability is that the building isn't listed so has little to distinguish it architecturally. Hotel reviews online are scant. It's listed in editions of Fodor's but the entries aren't substantial. The area of interest is the history of the site, including its earlier connections and the fact that it was used in the Second World War as a court. Berystede is named in books in connection with some of the court cases held, but mentions only. Also, the BBC chose it for a short series of radio broadcasts. So, indications of notability. The only substantial coverage found to date is the publication listed under the Source heading, the 1973 review in the local newspaper, plus the Britain/In Britain magazine articles, which I'm counting as one as they may be the same publication with a different name. These three sources have sufficient coverage to just get the article over the line, as regards the GNG. The Reading Evening Post reference isn't sufficiently focused on the hotel to count. Although the article was likely written by a SPA editor with a COI, User:TheLongTone has removed the unencyclopedic tone and off-topic content. To summarise, borderline notability, but I'm erring on the side of keep because a merge to South Ascot is impractical given the length of the article. Rupples (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just about meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find additional sources to expand the article. "Tea at the Berystede" seems like it is potentially more normal then the hotel, but I'm not finding sources to make an article on that either. It definately doesn't meet WP:COMPANY. Under Notability, Geographic Features, we have WP:NBUILD, specifically about buildings. People seem to be missing that guideline. Denaar (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Barnards.tar.gz, referencing might be weak but article should be preserved at this point in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found many newspaper articles and I am satisfied that the subject meets the WP:NBUILD guideline. Lightburst (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking at the Bracknell and Ascot Times article[8], this would certainly not meet WP:SIRS in WP:NCORP. As the article is about the business, NCORP applies. Neither does the Evening Post piece meet the independence criterion of WP:SIRS as it is clear from the articleThe Evening Post, 25th April 1988 that this is a promotional piece. Note that the end of the article contains the offer of a weekend for 2 as a prize for readers. What are the other sources being relied on here? because based on these two, I think this fails WP:NCORP for the business and it is clear it does not meet WP:NBUILD either. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And to add, could someone please add the delsort for NCORP as I think this needs attention of editors experienced in the NCORP guidelines as it is about a business. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While currently there is enough support for keep based on the sources that were identified, there was a reasonable request to bring this AfD also under the attention of editors specializing in companies. So giving this an extra cycle and including this AfD in that delsort.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough to meet WP:GNG
Let'srun (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Broutin

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

Borderline on notability. Might be notable, but I think not. UtherSRG (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hard to say. I found a copy of the first reference (Vigeant, Arsène : Un Maître d'Armes sous la Restauration - Paris - 1883) here: [9], but could only find one reference to "Broutin", and it looks like a passing reference. I couldn't locate the other general references. The French and Spanish Wikipedias have a couple more references, which I also couldn't locate. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find references to him in the BnF Gallica database, nor in Gscholar or Gbooks. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Homelessness. ✗plicit 14:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is likely an important social topic that could be written up in prose. What we get is poorly referenced list of random works featuring homelessness. This fails MOS:TRIVIA, WP:IPC, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTTVTROPES, and so on. While this could be redirected to Homelessness#Popular_culture, that subsection has the same problems and should likely disappear in its current form anyway. The only salvageable part of the aricle is the short prose section "Depictions of homelessness", which I'd suggest is used to replace the current content at Homelessness#Popular_culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the first two paragraphs to main article. Otherwise we are not an exhaustive list database of depictions of common thing that appears a lot in popular media. And no, not even Wikipedia:TVTROPES is that either (see their page “people sit on chairs”). Dronebogus (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Minimal participation and no consensus after two relists, and the article is not eligible for soft deletion. RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shoreditch TV

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

TV station which does not have evidence of notability; a search has not turned up any meaningful coverage. It is not clear that the BBC reference cited in the article even relates to this station. Previously PRODded. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apparently created this article however I have no knowledge of doing so! Then again it was 17 years ago. If you search for '"shoreditch tv" cctv' you do see some relevant articles from other outlets so apparently I didn't fabricate the entire thing. Dan Huby (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt I am certainly not accusing you of fabricating anything, merely stating that the TV station described does not appear to meet our notability requirements to have an article. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet College Rawalpindi

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

Prod was challenged by Jack4576. Still fails notability criteria. BookishReader (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Kotov (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. No independent or significant coverage. For example [10] is a routine transfer namecheck, this and similar articles are routine match reports, and this local news article just repeats information from databases. Kges1901 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Barsukov

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in RS and sourced only to databases. Outside of routine transfer announcements like this, only able to find this non-independent press release and a namecheck in a local news article. Kges1901 (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Around the Blockade

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

Non-notable organization. Unsourced article and no reliable sources online. Apmh 13:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Tehrani

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

Likely promotional or self-written. References are not reliable (I couldn't check the Hebrew reference but it definitely need a double check that it actually mentions his name). Written by one user in twenty different languages. Ladsgroupoverleg 13:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ziad Al-Khatib

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

WP:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamad Al-Harbi

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

WP:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article uses a single source, which is the player profile on a blog. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 14:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Al-Hagbani

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

WP:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article uses a single source, which is the player profile on a blog. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 14:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hatem Abdulrahman

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

WP:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article uses a player profile on a football league website, and the rest of the sources are sports blogs. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 14:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Najr

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

WP:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article uses only sports blogs for sources. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 14:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al Huwail

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

WP:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Safwan Al-Mowallad

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

WP:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulellah Hawsawi

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

WP:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhannad Yousuf Ozair

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

Notability Vyvagaba (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article uses only sports blogs and a player profile page as sources. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 14:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Malallah (footballer, born 1990)

Ahmed Malallah (footballer, born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability Vyvagaba (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Saqr

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

Notability Vyvagaba (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Zatout

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

Sources are mostly profiles, fight announcement and results, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that WP:GNG is met. Lack of independent, in-depth coverage. Subject does not meet criteria for WP:NKICK, fighting for ONE championship many times does not give notability. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - @Lethweimaster that article should be improved not deleted; fighter is ISKA and WBC World Champion, making him notable per WP:KICKGUIDE. Lewolka (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Improve article then, Lewolka. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"Kickguide" are not an official guidelines, they are to help us members of the Wiki project. These guidelines are erroneous: The WMC title is given loosely at local stadiums in Thailand (Bangla ect). Winning an ISKA title definitely doesn't make a fighter notable as the organization sanctions low level/non notable events all the time. Same for WBC Muaythai who's article was deleted for not being notable enough in 2022 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Boxing Council Muaythai) If you don't like the criteria you should propose we review them officially, I'd gladly help, otherwise article has to pass GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lethweimaster Well I’m not a member of the Kickboxing task force but you are, so if those guidelines are erroneous you’re in a better position to start the change.Lewolka (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is written at WP:KICKGUIDE is simply to guide Wikipedians in finding notable subjects, as if kickboxing athletes have won certain titles, significant coverage is likely to exist. I don't have problem with the official WP:NKICK guidelines. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - He fought for notable world titles: WBC Muaythai, ISKA and ONE Championship Kickboxing (not MMA), which gives him notability. Source Osu .karellian-24 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have to base our decision on Notability guidelines. Otherwise our discussions have no structure. These titles do not give the subject notability as per WP:NKICK. Lethweimaster (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there it is not full. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Kickboxing_task_force .karellian-24 Also for amateur boxing it is even passing with a NATIONAL championship medal. Or medalist in the world championships, World Games, sometimes even European championships of all the sports... (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link you are referring to is WP:KICKGUIDE, which states: "If one of the following guidelines for kickboxing-related articles is in conflict with a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the later has priority over the former." Lethweimaster (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNG.

  1. Tapology stats page Red XN
  2. Sherdog forums post Red XN
  3. "Yahoo News", copied from onefc.com (hosted on FightNewsAsia) Red XN
  4. 404 page from WBC Muay Thai, but non-independent anyway Red XN
  5. onefc.com non-independent Red XN
  6. onefc.com, article repurposed from the earlier onefc.com story copied by #3 Red XN
  7. "AsiaOne", identical to #3 copied from onefc.com Red XN
  8. Sherdog, routine match preview by a contractor for ONE Championship on a site of questionable reliability Red XN
  9. 404 Red XN
  10. Boxemag stats Red XN
  11. Siam Fight Mag, pure Q&A Red XN
  12. Bangkok Post, unattributed copy of The Nation, match preview/interview with opponent, no SIGCOV of Zatout Red XN
  13. 404 page from WBC Muay Thai Red XN
  14. MMA Fighting, passing mention Red XN
  15. MMA.uno 404, likely routine match recap Red XN
  16. mixedmartialarts.com/ONE Championship, non-independent Red XN
  17. ONE Championship, non-independent Red XN
  18. Sport360 retirement announcement, routine fight recap followed by quotes from a press conference, interspersed with content regurgitating or directly plagiarized from the onefc.com profile from #3. onefc.com:

    Zatout, who co-owns Venum Training Camp Thailand in Pattaya, is looking to display the skills that made him a kickboxing and Muay Thai champion in organizations around the globe. [...]
    Zatout got his start in Muay Thai through a group of school friends who were learning at a local gym in his hometown of Noisy-le-Sec, an eastern suburb in Paris, France.

    Sport360:

    Zatout, who co-owns Venum Training Camp Thailand in Pattaya, began training Muay Thai at 10, through a group of school friends who were learning at a local gym in his hometown of Noisy-le-Sec, an eastern suburb in Paris, France.

    Red XN
  19. Wordpress blog Red XN
  20. muaythaitv.com results 404 Red XN. JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CounterStrike Table Tennis

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

Sources are not reliable to show notability under WP NCORP rule Edit.pdf (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two news items in Gnews, a PR piece and the Indianapolis Business newspaper thing. I'm not seeing extensive coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let'srun (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mike Woessner

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Actualcpscm (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article subject is not notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage. The coaching positions themselves do not confer notability; there needs to be at least one reliable source providing significant coverage (see SPORTBASIC). Actualcpscm (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems reasonable. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwick College

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL, draft article moved by COI editor to mainspace. Greenman (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sorry to say but my attempts to find appropriate supporting materials to cite has been generally unsuccessful. One thing is that the mutliple entities are rarely considered together as a single unit. Further, the 'main campus' and the Hackensack colleges are really separate and distinct things - the former being a nursing college, the second a college of mortuary studies. I'm not saying that one could create a persistent article on either of these, though. Generally lacking in coverage overall. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No point in a third relisting given the lack of new participation. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thairiyam

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

The entire article survives on a single production source from The New Indian Express mostly consisting of quotes and a single review from The Hindu while two reliable reviews are needed for films. Behindwoods, Indiaglitz, and Top 10 Cinema are not reliable. DareshMohan (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. given the source supplied in this discussion along with existing article sources. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suppachai Srivijit

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

This individual falls short of meeting the notability criteria as defined in WP:GNG due to a significant dearth of substantial independent coverage from reputable sources.. Despite my search efforts, I was unable to locate substantial information. It is possible that there may be more coverage in Thai-language newspapers. I kindly request any editors from Thailand to provide sources that could assist in establishing the individual's notability. Based on the currently cited sources, it is evident that the individual falls significantly short of meeting the required notability standards. AmusingWeasel (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google news search of him [29] Those are considered reliable news sources recognized by Google (newspapers, magazines, TV channels). As you can see from the date of each news, he appear in news pretty much weekly or monthly, and this went far back for a decade or two. He is the top celeb agent in Thailand. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Keep's refutation of the BLP1E argument is solid, but there is ultimately a lack of consensus on whether coverage meets GNG, and the extent to which coverage of Puneet Superstar's Big Boss appearance counts towards establishing his notability. signed, Rosguill talk 00:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puneet Superstar

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

PROD was previously contested: influencer known for participating on Bigg Boss, fails WP:NACTOR. Arguements could be made for passing WP:GNG, but these sources are either possibly unreliable (refs one and four both have no documented editorial practices) or cover Kumar only as run of the mill television coverage. The article seems to fall foul of WP:BLP1E, as all of the sources found (in article and during WP:BEFORE) only cover Kumar in the context of Bigg Boss. His impact on this event was definitely not large, as he was removed from the show on the first day. If decided upon, an appropriate redirect / merge target would be Bigg_Boss_OTT_(Hindi_season_2). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to an established guideline that suggests one cannot be notable for a TV series? Additionally, note that the reliable independent sources above may have been published due to the event but are able to establish notability outside of the event. e.g.
"Puneet Kumar, also known as Lord Puneet or Puneet Superstar, gained fame after a video of him passionately shouting while riding as a passenger on a motorcycle went viral...Puneet Superstar is a social media influencer who has struck a chord with fans through his passionate expressions about the challenges of daily life, earning him the moniker of “hod” by many. He is renowned for donating 90% of his earnings to support underprivileged children and individuals, which has naturally endeared him to the public.[31] —siroχo 21:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough reliable in-depth source which is supporting WP:GNG and WP:BIO. All those article is about BIGG BOSS OTT. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are differing views about this article in relation to WP:BLP1E (a question that seems to be coming up a lot lately at AFD discussions). Some Deletes frankly seem more like IDON'TLIKEITs than policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per siroxo. GNG is met, and BLP1E does not apply because the LPI prong is not met. That said, the sourcing still feels pretty thin for a BLP and a merge as suggested above might not be a bad idea. -- Visviva (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Editors are encouraged to work on improving this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ferratum

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

Ferratum should be deleted or reduced to a stub. Almost all of the content contained in this article is not sourced or inappropriately sourced, and a proper cleanup based on available information from reliable sources would reduce it to a stub.

(1) This article contains many unreliable sources (WP:RS).

  • Reference 1: Broken
  • Reference 2: A press release from the company itself, breaking WP:RS
  • Reference 3: A press release from the company itself, breaking WP:RS
  • Reference 5: Not a source, breaking WP:RS
  • Reference 6: Broken

(2) There are very few reliable sources that could potentially be added to clean this up.

  • Further searches on Google, Google News, and Google Scholar showed little additional information from reliable sources with the exception of a Maltese lawsuit.

(3) This article is written like an advertisement and has struggled with populating sections with anything but promotional content since 2017. See Mean as custard's 16 and 24 July 2017 edits and Kimsey's 12 April 2019 edit. While WP:NPOV issues shouldn't be enough to warrant deletion, this article has very little room for improvement and has had the same unresolved issues for six years.

(4) The company does not qualify for WP:N because it seems to lack significant sources independent of the subject. This might be a product of this being a Finnish (...or Maltese, depending on the source?) company.

Ethamn (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stubify: It should just clean it up. CastJared (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add lots of details about allegations of misconduct in Australia and New Zealand. I added some references. Regulators in Australia and New Zealand have accused their local Ferratum companies of various types of misconduct. Perhaps similar misconduct has happened in other countries as well. 04:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastmain (talk • contribs)
  • Good catch Ethamn. I've remove the content copied from the company about page which was the most blatantly promotional part IMO. To be honest I think the NOTPROMO aspect is already enough to blow it up, but I'd agree it's not quite enough for G11, and the rest of the article I can't confirm as infringing so G12 may not be possible either. I'll be reviewing in a bit more detail later today but I'm leaning delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be writing my full rationale later but I've reviewed the available news coverage and am now fairly solidly supporting delete. The available coverage is routine and not of sufficient depth to establish corporate notability. Ethamn, I've also taken the liberty of unbolding the delete in your response, that's generally considered redundant as you are the person who nominated the article for deletion (that counts as a implicit delete opinion unless stated otherwise) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, it's ILLCON and related, coverage expected for day-to-day operations, etc Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaborating more about routineness. I know a lot of people don't like it being cited, but routineness of the coverage is one of the factors determining whether coverage is significant or not. This applies to all topics, but is also explicitly called out in CORPDEPTH for organisations and companies (partially because of high risk wrt PROMO). Routine coverage is trivial coverage. Significant coverage is about whether we can write an encyclopedic article from the available sources, and we cannot write an encyclopedia article about a subject that merely covers characteristics that it shares with every single other example of the same thing. To determine notability, (and I know people hate this essay even more) we need to determine whether the topic is MILL or SNOWFLAKE.
Beyond the illegal conduct (WP:ILLCON) which do not themselves appear to be notable, there is certainly news coverage that can be said to be significant were we measuring things solely on quantity of text. Stuff.co.nz has quite conveniently linked their coverage together in a series, the earliest of which is probably the closest to not being eliminated under ORGDEPTH out of any english language source I've seen. They actually published it three times, slightly rewritten, within about half a week (I'm not really sure what to think of that, but it did give me a slightly disturbing sense of déjà vu before I realised), as Text-a-loan rings alarm bells and defends rates, and "Banks of last resort for needy and naive". What can we take from those articles? They offer (or offered) a loan via text service. That's new. But what else? They charge ridiculously high interest rates? So does every other payday lender. They say they're justified in doing so? So does every other payday lender. Collections? Every other payday lender. This later article does note that they're "one of the more prominent" payday lenders, but what we should say about them it does not. And of course, they do also have two articles about the start and finish of the investigation. I did manage to find another Norwegian source, "Tilbyr lån til 115 prosent rente: – Det er helt hinsides" or "Offering loans at 115 per cent interest: - It is completely beyond the pale" (google translated), but again, the coverage is more appropriate to extract for a general "payday lending" article. It doesn't really offer anything substantive on Ferratum specifically. (Which, to be honest kinda seems like it may apply to our coverage on payday lenders in general. It's... not great, and probably half of them can be deleted)
Of course, there's room to disagree about this and while I have more I could probably say I'm not sure I have the time and I've already rambled on for probably too much (don't really have the time to edit this down either, so if anyone wants to hat this with a summary that sets expectations witout being OMGWTFBBQ feel free to do so without asking me). So yeah, basically routine news coverage isn't what we're here to write. Even if it were, the current article text doesn't help us write it. We are, and should be, especially strict re sourcing given the PROMO concerns. And while we could maybe write a "this is a payday lender" with 90% of the article then being "this is what payday lenders do" CORG, the coverage doesn't really seem to support it being about Ferratum specifically. Maybe this can be mentioned on an article on payday lending or history thereof and redirected there, but any specific redirect destination seems speculative at this point, and on the TNT to PRESERVE scale, I'm definitely on the TNT side here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, generally, we want to exhaust non-deletion options unless the subject of the article just can't pass deletion criteria. Iseult Δx parlez moi 14:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point, and there are still a couple of foreign language publications that I may need to review. This is one such article I found, though not really the most promising (it also seems to be syndicated but should be mostly independent). Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No responses after 2 relists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 07:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The wildfire smoke is hiding the snow Star Mississippi 00:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Dhankar

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

Draft was declined then moved to mainspace by conflicted user, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Theroadislong (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Vyvagaba (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ due to the finding of multiple Spanish language sources during the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Valle

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

Fails WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. There is limited coverage of her but also there is a namesake who is an American abortion campaigner. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Existing sources don't provide any significant amount of coverage, and there's almost nothing else online in English language. Retracting !vote after sources found below, but I'm not fluent or familiar enough to evaluate. —siroχo 08:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Vyvagaba (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There have been no further comments since the last relist, indicating the discussion has run out of steam. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaire national football team results (unofficial matches)

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

Basically, a list of friendly matches between neighbouring very small islands (Bonaire has some 20000 inhabitants), not between nations but between parts of the same nation. No evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Wikipedia editors maintain a large sourced collection of national team match results from hundreds of countries around the globe, including official and unofficial matches, with an aim for completeness. There is nothing special about this one aside from the colonization factor raised in the nom.
    Deleting a part of it would be counterproductive, see WP:SSE and Gibraltar national football team results (unofficial matches), Greenland national football team results (unofficial matches), Hong Kong national football team results (unofficial matches), Kosovo national football team results (unofficial matches), etc —siroχo 08:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The "aim for completeness" in sports articles has been used as an excuse for many articles which are no longer automatically accepted, be it Olympians, cricket players, international footballers, ... and all discussions about these topics have indicated that completeness is not a reason to create or keep articles if the subject isn't notable. Perhaps these other articles need deletion as well, perhaps they are notable, I haven't checked them as their status is not relevant for this AfD. Fram (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It very well could be that none of these articles about unofficial matches for small national team need to exist, but that discussion is indeed relevant to this AfD. There's a risk of reinforcing systemic bias in Wikipedia by picking and choosing which of this type of article to delete. If we delete piecemeal without considering the ramifications across the encyclopedia, it also becomes harder for editors who work on such articles to improve the way the information is organized. For example it may be appropriate to merge this into Bonaire national football team results. But, then should all parallel articles be merged in a similar way? If not, what would be the criteria? It's difficult to know for those of us who don't work on them.
      Also, the comparison to athlete BLP articles doesn't quite apply regarding OSE, because there are indeed a relatively limited number of national teams as compared to individual athletes.
      It may be appropriate to raise the general concern about such articles with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. —siroχo 09:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm going to repost the answer I gave to user Fran on my page:
"Hello there.
The article was created separately precisely because it includes matches while Bonaire was not yet a member of CONCACAF, so they are not "Full A" matches.
The case is basically the same with Kosovo and Gibraltar, which, like Bonaire, only joined into a confederation in the past decade, and before completing membership, there was only playing against smaller islands and clubs."
What motivated me to create this page in question is the lapse of matches that exists since Bonaire established its national team until it was accepted as a member of CONCACAF. The other matches (mostly against Aruba and Curaçao) have been added as additional information was available on the World Football Elo Ratings. I undestand the WP:SSE politcs, but because it is one of the last established national teams (created in the last decade), I thought it was pertinent. Thank you all for your attention and good contributions. Svartner (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Svartner DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of sources is needed. In particular, claims of unreferenced and potentially unverifiable information need to be addressed, as the keep argument at this point is that this and other similar article comprise a useful primary source by providing a complete account of the sport.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government First Grade College, Carstreet

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

repeatedly moved from draft by COI editor bypassing AFC, topic fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NCORP and is just advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments suggesting keep don't actually use our policies or guidelines to establish notability. However, they offer circumstantial evidence that such notability might exist so rather than down weighting them (and given the limited support for deletion) let's try relisting one more time to see if actual sources showing notability can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a gov't official show up to open your school is what they do, it's called a photo op. Rest is routine coverage or trivial mentions of the school. Scoring a high grade isn't notable either, the schools all get graded, so one is no more important than another when this happens. There are no sources discussing the history or architecture of the school, simply mentions of things happening at it, all of it routine coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That grading article also uses flowery language and basically says it was graded B before, the staff worked hard and it got an A. Oaktree b (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Editors dismiss the coverage as "routine" and invoke WP:ROUTINE, yet I don't see "routine" mentioned anywhere in the WP:GNG or for that matter in WP:NORG, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't agree that the Minister of State is your typical government official opening the college. Architecture of school buildings doesn't appear in most of the school, college, university articles I've looked at and doesn't necessarily support notability of the institution. There are already elements of history in the article; history is ongoing and can be added when significant events are reported. Further, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) states in its opening paragraph The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions . . . . This college is a non-profit educational institution run by the state and therefore falls outside the scope of the guideline, hence "fails WP:NCORP" in the nomination is not relevant. Rupples (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rechecking my last statement is correct re 'non-profit' - don't want to mislead anyone and I'm not familiar with the system. Students do pay tuition fees, but my understanding is that the Government Colleges are part-financed by the State. Rupples (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on whether the coverage is routine or not, but the part of WP:N that covers routineness is WP:SBST. Nonprofit educational institutions could indeed be retained under GNG. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this article relisted more than 2 times (according to Wikipedia policy article not relisted more than 2 times). we didn't get any new comments till today. 1 week ago. Thank you Ardo27 (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC) sockmaster 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 07:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mistakenly closed it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 06:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete according to the nomination and the ongoing conversation. In any case, it does not meet the criteria of WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. RPSkokie (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AFD is a mess. And the article has been moved and the AFD tag has been removed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - Merge with Mangalore University? It's a pretty short article, the University has an official "Association" with 5 other "colleges" - which makes it sound like they are satellite locations of the main college? This specific location/school is only in it's second year of accreditation, so it doesn't have much history yet. Denaar (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing further reading - there are thousands of these small local schools that are "Affiliated" with a bigger University, to expand educational opportunities. This is an article about it:
    "Andhra University has 405 affiliated undergrad colleges; Bangalore University 400; Osmania 390 and Bombay University 300. Quite clearly supervising the operations, conducting examinations and awarding degrees to students of such large numbers of affiliated colleges stretches the resources of parent universities to the limit, leaving little time for them to supervise postgrad education and undertake research studies which should be their first priorities."
    "The affiliating system of colleges was originally designed when their number in a university was small. The university could then effectively oversee the working of the colleges, act as an examining body and award degrees on their behalf."[42]
    So - Merge seems appropriate unless there is a lot of notability about a specific affiliate, should be case-by-case, but this one has only been accreddited two years and hasn't generated much coverage yet.
    Denaar (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now based on existing referencing support, the article can be improved and/or renominated for deletion again in the future. - Indefensible (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep — there are several noteworthy points about this particular college, especially after removing ad-like text. Several sources note specific emphasis on improving education rates in the area, there are actions taken by the government to advocate and support education for women, and the institution has been around for 15+ years now (looks to have been founded in 2007).
    If it becomes ad-like again, it would seem reasonable to delete after another AfD if it ends up deteriorating. The article could use some additional content to support what I mentioned above, but it otherwise reads better with only a little bit of extra care. Pedantical (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Garodia International Centre for Learning. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garodia School (icse)

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

Previously prodded 10 years ago. No sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Afsar Ali Ahmed

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎PARVAGE talk! 06:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

Does not meet WP:GNG PARVAGE talk! 06:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baobab-K

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

Non-notable military vehicle. Beyond photos of it, I can't find sourcing that discusses it in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b This is the official site of the military company (https://www.hsw.pl/en/offer/scattered-mine-laying-system-baobab-k/). Onesgje9g334 (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b And here is another one from Busniss Insider (https://businessinsider.com.pl/wiadomosci/baobab-k-zasili-polska-armie-co-to-za-pojazd-wideo/fzj21j8). Onesgje9g334 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist (Attention to those admins who just review AFDs with 3 relists! Here's one).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022. I can't see relisting this discussion a 3rd time in case someone responds to my request so I'll close this with the option to merge article content to the list of mass shootings. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Oakland party shooting

2022 Oakland party shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable crime, appearing rather routine. Coverage is simply a statement of facts, crime happened, suspects arrested. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty notable in the East Bay area. Ask any teens or 20s people or parents with teen kids and they most likely heard of this BigBeefShareef (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - honestly, I don't see the notability of the event. Most of the sustained coverage comes from more local sources and there's no real impact outside of a few arrests.
Now this can be Redirected or Merged into the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 article as that mentions the mass shooting. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the possibility of redirecting or merging some of the article content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. There is a consensus to Keep this article because the subject itself is notable. But there is concern about the current state of the article. Luckily, User:Ancheta Wis has been active on this article and I encourage other interested editor to contribute to improving it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Systems thinking

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

WP:SYNTH, this is a generic term, the only citation supporting the existence of this concept is a random government civil service exam study guide. - car chasm (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previously added another citation from 1997. Therefore it's not OR. Also, why doesn't Newton's System of the World 1687 qualify? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be honest here - I have absolutely no idea why you think a primary source from the 17th century is an acceptable WP:RS for a page discussing a topic that originates in the 20th century. - car chasm (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a superficial article prepared by someone whose knowledge is restricted to one sub-field. There is no mention of Systems Biology, for example, a very active field of research for at least 30 years, and no mention of Henrik Kacser, Robert Rosen, Humberto Maturana, Walter Pitts, etc. There is also no mention of Systems chemistry, a topic I know little about, but which exists. Athel cb (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite: there is an extensive literature about systems thinking, but many of the article's references are not relevant to this subject. Jarble (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This paper from scholar looks promising, but it also says that that "However, as yet there is no commonly accepted definition or understanding of it." - so it seems that an article drawn from sources like this would discuss the use of the term, which appears to fall afoul of WP:NOTDICT. I'm unaware of any other policy that discusses what to do when various sources all use the same term to refer to different topics. - car chasm (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's from a predatory publisher. Not promising at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. This really seems like a "blue trucks" article: the fact that a bunch of people have used the phrase "systems thinking" to describe something doesn't mean that they were describing the same thing, or that there is a single thing for us to write an article about. Taking it at face value, the definition is so broad as to be vacuous: "looking at [the world] in terms of wholes and relationships"? Gee whiz.. as opposed to what? "Yesterday I went to a place where there was a grain of sand. There was also a second grain of sand. There was also a third grain of sand. There was also a fourth..." jp×g 18:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but fix. There is a thing (or set of things) that people refer to as "Systems thinking" (as with (and perhaps not entirely opposed to) "Design Thinking"). There is an entire domain of Systems Engineering, and General Systems Theory that can be drawn from. Wikipedia is a work in progress. dml (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist but are those editors advocating Keeping and fixing offering to do this themselves? And if you support the idea of Redirection, you have to supply a target article to consider redirecting to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Carstensen

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

NN musician - notability assertions not supported by reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We also have some decent coverage here that is not independent:
—siroχo 06:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The NYT is a blog discussion of the columnist's playlist, with about a paragraph for this artist. Hardly sigcov, somewhat reliable. AllMusic is fine. The first Billboard article is a photo caption, very "passing mention". Rest of the sources are about as useless for proving notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gsearch only brings up Spotify, social media and Soundcloud links. All non-useful for notability. Coverage above is trivial mentions of the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT blog is definitely sigcov, describing the way the subject plays harp, the way the subject sings, production, relationships, diagnosis, etc. Via WP:SIGCOV Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. —siroχo 23:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the cited doctoral dissertation is SIGCOV, not useless for proving notability. —siroχo 23:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this Billboard piece is significant coverage here and continues on another page, there's also the AllMusic review and the doctoral dissertation, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Chen

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

NN Musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Perhaps something can be salvaged in a merge? But to where? UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to add names to a protected page, I suggest you follow the advice given here and make an edit request on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rajput Sportspersons

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

This is nothing but a replication of List of Rajputs#Sports. Almost all name listed here are mentioned there in a seperate heading called "Sports".Hence it's undue to keep a seperate article for it.-Admantine123 (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the original page List of Rajputs is already overloaded and no new names are being added despite repeated requests. Therefore, it is better if it is section-wise moved to a separate page for easier addition of names and better presentation (more details and images).
I propose that the names under Sports section can be removed from that page and a redirect to List of Rajput Sportspersons be added.
In future, similar things can be done for other sections as and when required. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another point is that few people are mentioned in just one category, although they have significant contributions in other as well which makes it difficult to get all relevant names at a place.
Example, Ranjitsinhji is mentioned in Sports section but his name should also have been in Indian Royalty section as well due to his immense contributions as a Maharaja of Nawanagar state.
Another example is Paan Singh Tomar who should be mentioned in 2 sections, Sports and Criminals.
Also addition of new names like Roop Singh, brother of Dhyan Chand.
The biggest concern is the no response to previous recommendations of new name additions. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another new addition of Ashok Kumar, a famous hockey world cup winning player and son of Dhyan Chand. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn’t very long. No need for a length split. Dronebogus (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the primary purpose to shift the page is to make it longer with new additions which are not happening on the original page.
This might not be much long right now but atleast new names are being added here, 3 have already been added, 10-12 are in queue, just confirming the citations.
If you don't allow for a length split right now because the length doesn't seems long, the very purpose is defeated which is to make it more exhaustive, detailed (proper explanation & images) and arranged properly (in alphabetical order) for easier navigation; all of which is not possible in the older list. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Original article is currently locked due to persistent inappropriate additions made without reliable sources regarding the Rajput status. As a result, you may not have the ability to edit it. However, you can place your editing request on the article's talk page, and a reviewer will assess your request and incorporate the necessary changes on your behalf.AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteIt appears that this list is primarily a copy-and-paste of an existing article, with only a few new names added. Instead of creating a separate article, it would be more appropriate to edit the existing one to include these additional names. Without significant content changes and substantial additions, the creation of a standalone article does not seem justified.AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but then kindly lower the editing status of List of Rajputs page as no new additions are being done in it inspite of repeated messages on talk page. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ or at least no consensus to delete. Merging may be done at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trivial list of appearances and what-have-yous. Maybe refine to “impact of 9/11 on popular culture (or redirect if that already exists)” but even then a comic in 2004 featuring the attacks is getting into “historical event” territory, not contemporary impact. Dronebogus (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Probably TNT, but the merge sounds better. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or selective merge to World Trade Center. This is a notable topic, but most of the content here is virtually unusable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is very clearly a notable topic, and the principal objection to keeping this is article quality. However, WP:DEL-CONTENT notes that If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page; I see no need for us to ignore the deletion policy's guidance here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIt's a pretty big article. There is a lot of problematic work. But is it significant without an updated article about the building for the encyclopedia? --Wyndhan Han (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The way it's written, it's pushing people to add every trivial instance of "someone used a photo of New York in their work" which is not what I'm reading the purpose of Lists on Wikipedia generally should be. I think the paragraph about the Simpsons is interesting, but it is Original Research? The item below it "Desperately Xeeking Xena" is a good example of a non-notable mention of the tower in pop culture. If we keep it, will it constantly be a target of that kind of padding? Denaar (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Standard to apply is NCORP and addressed by delete side. The jeep side has not addressed this standard Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Monem Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Brochure article. Routine business news as references. scope_creepTalk 12:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M.parvage (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems PROMO, with only routine business announcements for procuring funding and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge according to the discussion. Mehedi Abedin 13:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I would suggest keep since it is an industrial giant in the 25th largest economy in the world. It has multibillion dollar revenues and employs tens of thousands of people. Please consider it improving rather than proposing for deletion without studying its background. Maqayum (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What counts per WP:NCORP is the standard of the reference. I notice you have only completed one Afd but your the article creator I guess.

Lets have a look at them.

  • Ref 1 [54]]. This in interview, content taken from the website. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • Ref 2 [55] Company website. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.
  • Ref 3 [56] This routine coverage, failing WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 4 Same as above.
  • Ref 5 [57] About the man himself, not the company. Its not in-depth.
  • Ref 6 [58] Obituary. Its not independent.
  • Ref 7 [59] Same as ref 4.

Looking at the references above.

  • Ref 8 [60] Obit. Not independent.
  • Ref 9 [61] Same ref as above.
  • Ref 10 [62] Not indepth.Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 11 [63] Good secondary ref.
  • Ref 12 [64] Not independent. Written by an intern at the company and branded with company branding. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 13 [65] Not independent. Written by an intern at the company and branded with company branding. Fails WP:SIRS

Potentially there is 1 secondary source but the quality of the references are woeful and fail WP:NCORP. It is not enough to satisfy WP:THREE, which per consensus is established WP:AFD best practice. At best the secondary proves exist and verifiable but not necessarily notable after an extensive WP:BEFORE search. scope_creepTalk 08:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as I see no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - added some refs. There is probably enough notability for inclusion, I think either closing as keep or no consensus to let the article further develop should be fine. - Indefensible (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the references:
  • Ref 1 [66] It states According to a press release Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 2 [67] Numerous conversations with the Monen director, for each project. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • Ref 3 [68] Mentioned Monem indirectly. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 4 [69] A short paragraph, profile essentially. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 5 [70] Passing mention.Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 6 [71] Four words. Fails WP:SIRS

More of the same and a complete lack of intellectual rigour and complete ignorance of policy as though it doesn't exist. scope_creepTalk 06:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Complete lack" seems like hyperbole and maybe you should reconsider whether you are wrong, for example 16 is at least 3 paragraphs. - Indefensible (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
INHERITORG applies. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of poor sources noted above. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Keeping based on the notability of winning two awards since no one has contested that they are significant for publishers in Bangladesh. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agamee Prakashani

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG M.parvage (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first mention that I found of it, mentioned that it was one of the premier publisher's in Bangladesh. It had published more than 3000 books. That is a major publisher. Its been going for 37 years which means its publishing on average, more than 80 books a year. That is a major publisher in anybody's book, making it notable. scope_creepTalk 17:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Source 1 ? No No Some words from an interview ✘ No
Source 2 No No No ✘ No
Source 3 ~ Yes A recognized newspaper No just a summary ✘ 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}}.

M.parvage (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5 for Ajit Singh Bhati and Shambhujit Singh Bhati as article created by a Bensebgli sock with no significant contributions from others; and redirect to Dadri for Dargahi Singh Bhati. Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Singh Bhati

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

There is no mention of them in the sources cited in these articles. One source is the book of an academic named Javaid Rahi, who is not independent because he is a Gujjar academic who only writes praise in his publications. Second, it is unknown whether these kings existed or were imaginary. Some such articles were created in the last two to three days using the Gazetteer as a source, but there is no mention of these names in it.

This nomination is also for:

You can see a short discussion here on my talk. DreamRimmer (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think these articles do not meet the criteria for deletion, as many reliable sources have already been added. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything significant in these sources either. DreamRimmer (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer Okay, sir, no problem. I'll always try to do my best, and other editors can also do their best. But if you think your first claim has not been cleared, as you said such characters are imaginary first, and you also said these pages are entirely based on the work of Javaid Rahi, I have already cleared these claims by putting more than 4 to 5 references from independent and reliable sources, so there should be no more excuses because such sources have been written by different writers that have nothing to do with these characters, so such claims do not meet the criteria for deletions of the articles of Dargahi Singh Bhati, Shambujit Singh Bhati, and Ajit Singh Bhati. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone
@أسامة بن عبد الله وليد
@Scottywong
Oppose the deletions Request = Do not meet the criteria for deletion as this page has multiple primary sources and secondary sources exist on the article pages of Dargahi Singh Bhati and Ajit Singh Bhati and shambhujit Singh Bhati. 103.172.167.25 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck sock !vote. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2023-06 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all: Now that sources have been added verifying that they really existed, they are presumed to be notable per Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. --StellarHalo (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Dadri is wrongly mentioned as a princely state in the three articles, although it was an estate. And the subject of this AfD (Ajit Singh) was its muqarraridār, i.e. he occupied it by paying a fixed revenue rate to the British.
As of now, Dirk H. A. Kolff's source is the sole reliable source cited in these three articles. It has nontrivial coverage about Ajit Singh Bhati, but Shambhujit Singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati have a combined coverage of around 5 lines in it (see p. 149). So it seems these two don't need standalone articles and should be covered in some other article. Maybe for now a paragraph about the Dadri estate can be added in Dadri#History where both of them can also be covered/redirected. The Kolff's source doesn't mention their surname as Bhati. So all three pages are needed to be renamed as well.
Some details about Javed Rahi's unreliable book

The Javaid Rahi's source is cited in all three articles. But it is edited by Javaid Rahi, a Gurjar activist who specialises in Kashmiri languages. So he is not even a historian. More importantly, the author (Rana Ali Hussan Chouhan) of the cited pages was not even a scholar. He was a civil engineer belonging to the Gurjar caste himself. So this is a non-scholarly and non-HISTRS source, which is not reliable for history-related details. BTW, the details of the author (Chauhan) are mainly available on Gurjar promo sites, although his nephew also mentions in this interview that Chauhan was a civil engineer in Pakistan Public Works Department. Note that the 400-plus pages of Rahi's book, i.e. pp. 243–728, are authored by this Gurjar engineer. As expected from a nonscholar, the content is full of fringe theories, e.g. Kolff's source mentions (on page no. 151) that the subject of this AfD (Ajit Singh) died in 1812: "On 4 October 1812, Rao Ajit Singh died without issue." But as per Chauhan (see page no. 590), Ajit Singh took part in the Indian Rebellion of 1857: "Raja Ajit Singh had a vast territory but he was not granted a ‘Treaty Pact’ so Bhatis revolted vociferously in 1857. Consequently Raja Ajit Singh died fighting."

The rest of the sources are century-old unreliable gazetteers authored by British Raj officers or the nonscholarly government documents which plagiarise those gazetteers. None of them are reliable for history-related details – see WP:RAJ, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:HISTRS.
In short, Ajit Singh Bhati seems notable, but Shambhujit Singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati should be redirected. Note that this observation is mainly based on the cited sources of the three articles and I have yet to make an independent search about the subjects. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal to NitinMlk's analysis of sources from أسامة بن عبد الله وليد and tangents about other articles signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose the false claim @NitinMlk I do respect your concern, but first of all, These articles are largely dependent on independent sources written by different writers, not on Javed Rahi's or Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan's. The second thing is that where Dargahi Singh Bhati and Shambu Singh (Shambhujit Singh) are mentioned as bhati, they are also clearly mentioned in the Quotes given from the citations. And also go and check; there are many references that Dadri's rulers were Bhati Gujjar and Bhati Gujjar clan clearly mentioned in the Quotes given from the citations, and I am the creator of Ajit Singh Bhati (also known as Rao Jit Singh Bhati) and Shambujit Singh Bhati (Also known as Shambu Singh) Singh Bhati's pages. So it's a wrong claim that Dadri's rulers were not Bhati Gujjar's second statements regarding Javaid Rahi or Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan because their references are not mentioned as first sources in the body of the article. If you have some problems with the Citations given by Javaid Rahi's book, Can be removed, but Bhati Gujjar is clearly mentioned by many independent historians. but if you have some issues why These characters mentioned as Bhati Gujjar go and read the Quote given from Refrences and also try to read these Refrences some are free or some are paid where Rulers of Dadri estate or Dadri's rulers clearly mentioned as Bhati Gujjar. Thank you so much for leaving your concern and being kind. ✝️✝️🕊️ Have a nice day Brother @NitinMlk.
أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
أسامة بن عبد الله وليد, you misunderstood my comment. All three subjects were of course Gurjars belonging to the Bhati clan. I didn't even contest that fact. My comment was about WP:COMMONNAME, which simply means that if most of the reliable sources refer to the subject of this article as, let's say, Rao Ajit Singh, then that will be the Wikipedia article's title. BTW, Kolff's source refers to him as Rao Ajit Singh, which also seems like his WP:COMMONNAME. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2023 (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, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !votes, more arguments about other articles signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose
@Liz
@NitinMlk
First of all, there is not a single reference. From the work of Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan, then why have you mentioned his work? The second thing is that, According to your claim, Dadri was not a princely state but an estate. Does it matter or meet the criteria for deliberation? Instead of providing any reliable source, you just try to make lame excuses by talking about Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan, even though there is not a single citation from his book and his books are not reachable digitally. You also talk about redirecting these pages to the Dadri town article, but why? Why not write a new article on Dadri estate or Dadri princely state in the future by citing reliable sources? You also claimed that Dirk H.A. Kolff just talked about Bhatti Gujjar in six lines. That's not the truth. I am leaving the Reference to Dirk H.A. Kolff. Book go and Read carefully. He talked about Dadri's rulers as Bhatti Gujjar, and he also talked about Dargahi Singh Bhati, Ajit Singh Bhati, and Shambujit Singh Bhati see this Reference on pages 138, 148, 461, 462, and 641. [a] 103.191.123.67 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck sock !vote. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you mentioned that Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan is not cited in the articles in question. But that's not true, as he is cited in all three articles even now: see Ajit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 6; Shambhujit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 7; and Dargahi Singh Bhati's ref no. 4. All of them cite page no. 589 and/or page no. 590, which are authored by Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan.

Secondly, I never "claimed that Dirk H.A. Kolff just talked about Bhatti Gujjar in six lines." I mentioned that Kolff's source "has nontrivial coverage about Ajit Singh Bhati, but Shambhujit Singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati have a combined coverage of around 5 lines in it (see p. 149)."

Thirdly, Dadri was never a princely state. So I pointed out that mistake, as estates and princely states are two different things. You can read princely state to know more about it.

Fourthly, I mentioned, "Maybe for now a paragraph about the Dadri estate can be added in Dadri#History where both of them can also be covered/redirected." But of course if a well-sourced article about Dadri estate is created in the future, then these two subjects can be covered there.

Finally, please don't reply without reading my previous and this comment very carefully. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NitinMlk
•1st Dear brother you're not trying to understand the base of our conversation.
First of all you're absolutely wrong and not using Comman sense that any refrences from the work of Rana Ali Hassan chauhan not mentioned in any citations at all. Brother do your research and home work again clear your confusion first or provide solid proofs that any writer mentioned in their books that they're writing about these characters by considering first refrences from the work of Rana Ali Hassan chauhan simple.
• 2nd thing is that all your false claims now have clear because Raj Era sources all I have removed.
• 3rd claim That Dadri's rulers never mentioned as bhatti this claim Also proven wrong and this article not dependent on the work of Javaid Rahi and Rana Ali Hassan chauhan totally wrong claim without any mention of these writers in the books of Dirk H.A Kolff or other Writers as refrences.
• 4th thing is that you totally try to manipulate the conversation by putting small excuses like oh! This was not a princely state but a Estate okay no problem but this small excuses can not meet the criteria for deletions.
• 5th read your previous comment again you said Dirk H.A Kolff only talk in 6 lines I have mentioned 5 to 6 pages where Dirk Kolf clearly mentioned about Dargahi Singh Bhati and Bhati Gujjar clan and Rulers of Dadri as Bhati same things also have done by all other historians.
• 6th Go and read citation research again Not any author of these books Used Rana Ali Hassan chauhan's work as first sources or they don't even talk or mentioned the name of Rana Ali Hassan chauhan.
• 7th thing is that it is not necessary to put In Dadri's town article about Dadri estate of Bhati Gujjar and by saying that you also point out that these two pages Dargahi Singh or Shambu Singh should redirect to Dargahi's town article at what bases brother?. You said because these two characters don't have Coverage in dirk Kolf or other's work you're wrong I have mentioned 6 pages from Dirk H.A Kolff's Book he talked about Dargahi Singh Bhati also Shambu Singh bhati Even he talked about Rao Roshan Singh Bhati but the link that I have provided is a paid work of Dirk H.A Kolff we can not entirely get access to his work without paying.
•8th Dadri's was an independent state established by Dargahi Singh Bhati, Ruled by Rao Roshan Singh Bhati, Umrao Singh Bhati, shambujit Singh Bhati, Amra Singh Bhati they all belonged to one monarchy and one family of Bhati Gujjar clan. Refrences given in the article will decided such characters have more or less coverage. Brother Your lame excuses like Dargahi Singh or Ajit Singh Bhati never signed a treaty with britishers etc and They paid tribute to Britishers such excuses are irrelevant here and Dadri was a princely state or just a estate also doesn't matter here. Totally irrelevant to the topic of Deletions discussion.
•9th thing you should have to accept the fact that your claims like Dadri's rulers never mentioned as bhatti have already cleared, Britishers never Singh a treaty, these pages dependent on Javaid Rahi or Rana Ali Hassan chauhan's work also proven wrong, shambu singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati don't have Coverage also proven wrong by the given refrences and RAJ Era sources triggered you so I have removed all. Brother I am leaving best wishes and love for you and also mentioning the articles of Umrao Singh Bhati, Dargahi Singh Bhati, Shambhujit Singh Bhati, and Ajit Singh Bhati these 4 Rulers belonged to one monarchy one Gujjar family of Bhati clan. Amra Singh Bhati, Roshan Singh Bhati and some other Rulers from this monarchy have not yet any articles. Have nice day 😊 brother before claims must bring solid proofs!. @Liz@StellarHalo@Scottywong أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
see Ajit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 6; Shambhujit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 7; and Dargahi Singh Bhati's ref no. 4. All of them cite page no. 589 and/or page no. 590, which are authored by Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan. You're absolutely wrong here. If Javaid Rahi in his book or any other writer doesn't even talk about Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan's work/book or doesn't even mention at the bottom line of the page that these references they take from the work\Book of Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan, then on what basis are you wasting your time, Brother? Please don't reply, brother, if you don't have any solid proof that any writer mentioned that they're talking on behalf of Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan's work. Simply use Coman Sense. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ping me. This is just one of hundreds of AFDs that are open right now. What we really need is to hear from other editors. You've said your peace, let others weigh in. This is a process of consensus building, not which editor can be the most persistent. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have a relist not overwhelmed by walls of text from a sockpuppet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here. But, speaking as an uninvolved bystander, perhaps a move to Draft space would alleviate some concerns about sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Mexico–North Korea relations. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of North Korea, Mexico City

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

Article is just a list of non notable ambassadors and not about the actual embassy itself. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Delete, Keep and Merge/Redirect options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stub article which is basically a list of non-notable persons. Every person on the list is redlinked as well. ConcentratedCobalt (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Byles

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from independent sources, thus failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Vyvagaba (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olamide Toyin Adebayo

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no good refs. Fails WP:NBADMINTON --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator and A. B. Not notable badminton player who fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBADMINTON DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep continental championships winner therefore notable enough Bearas (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid rationale. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the Broken

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

Likely to fail WP:NBAND. KH-1 (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some reliable secondary sources can be found—has the band been discussed in significant newspapers (i.e. the Wheeling Intelligencer, Charleston Gazette, Huntington Herald-Dispatch, etc., other than merely being mentioned on concert/event schedules? Are there any sources other than schedules/promotional materials and self-published blogs/websites? If the band has even minimal notability, it should be easy to establish now that most media are available online. P Aculeius (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This band was featured today on the Southwestern Virginia Sun due to their upcoming performance at the local festival today. I added the news source to the page. Danzigmusicfan1 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a passing mention: all it says is that it's an 8-piece band from Danville and that they're performing at the Chautauqua festival in Wytheville, Virginia at 8:30 p.m. tonight. That's a schedule, not significant coverage, and the paper it's in isn't exactly a household name. This looks like what WP:SIGCOV calls a "trivial mention": it doesn't talk about the band or its members or its songs; it's the briefest description possible, and its sole purpose is letting a small number of readers know that the band performing at a local festival two hours from now. P Aculeius (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Barman

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

Non-notable singer, with references from here to tomorrow. Gsearch goes straight to his website, then social media. Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. signed, Rosguill talk 01:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable actor, source bot confirms most of the sources are iffy with one being red, so non-notable. I can't find mention of this individual in RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:ENT. Neutral - Only six films listed, two of which have not been released. The article only has four sentences (one of which is unsourced) describing his career. Noting indicates notability by Wikipedia standards.— Maile (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added note: This article is not ready for main space. The first paragraph under Career is not written in complete sentences. — Maile (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to "Neutral", simply because this is an Indian actor in Indian films, and I don't know what qualifies as "significant roles in multiple notable films" for this particular actor's career. — Maile (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion of whether the subject meets NACTOR seems appropriate given the swing between the past two relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as played in lead role in 4+ movies. Even if this page get's deleted, very sooner the page will be eligible for inclusion. No point to delete in hurry. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (!vote farther up). WP:NACTOR says This guideline applies to actors ... Such a person may be considered notable if: 1. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films. Significant roles in 4 notable films (top billed in 3 of them). I will need some clarification of the guideline if it does not apply to this subject. —siroχo 08:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly had significant roles in multiple notable films, so it's a WP:NACTOR pass.—Alalch E. 21:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fingazz

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

Non-notable music entrepreneur. Sources are all un-RS, discogs and the like. Nothing found in RS, appears PROMO. Was also deleted way back in 2017, for lack of sourcing, same as this nom. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AIR News

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Uncited, orphan article. A before search only brings up primary cites. Moronterei (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IgelRM (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Half the article is an unsourced station list of what is an on-hire news service merely there for AU stations to carry to fulfill basic license guidelines and with no real designs to do more than rip and read the wire and provide a couple of standard music countdowns. Nate • (chatter) 00:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot find sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I think editors coming in after the final relisting have provided sources that overcome Deletion objections. Just a note that while it's discouraged to relist AFD discussions more than twice, sometimes the discussion can change significantly after a third relisting. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Beaty

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

First female mayor should be notable, but coverage is all routine happenings. Beaverton is a mid-size town, not notable on a national scale. The bit about the former mayor being arrested for being a pedophile isn't particularly helpful. Would be a stronger keep if she was featured in a large newspaper or the like, rather than just reporting on what she's done for the city. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that there were significant flaws in the way in which the article was originally presented. I appreciate Oaktree b's recommendations about the reference to the former mayor and the extensive information about what she has done for the city. I have made edits accordingly. However, I disagree that Beaty does not meet the notability threshold. While the average mayor of Beaverton, Oregon may not be particularly noteworthy, Beaty is the first woman and youngest mayor in the city's history, as Oaktree b mentioned. Additionally, she has participated in national events, and contributed to national organizations, that I did not include in the article, but they have broadened her notability nonetheless.[1][2][3] Even if Beaty wasn't the first female or youngest mayor of the city, it wouldn't be unprecedented for her to have a page; several other current mayors of midsized cities in Oregon have Wikipedia articles (see: Lucy Vinis, Chris Hoy, and Steve Callaway). I appreciate the opportunity to make this article better, but I strongly discourage deletion. Biznaga22 (talk) 8:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Achieving Large Goals: Short Essays from Three U.S. Mayors. The Bush Center. Retrieved June 16, 2023, https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/creating-more-perfect-union/mayors-moving-communities-to-greater-goals.
  2. ^ Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative Announces Sixth Class of Mayors. Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative. Retrieved June 16, 2023, https://www.cityleadership.harvard.edu/news-collection/bloomberg-harvard-city-leadership-initiative-announces-sixth-class-of-mayors.
  3. ^ Pool Reports of January 20, 2023. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved June 16, 2023, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/pool-reports-january-20-2023.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
    • "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."
WP:NPOL is the subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that mentions politicians. Referring to local politicians it says:
  • "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."
There's full-length reliable, independent news coverage of this mayor.[73][74][75][76][77]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The job of local news is to cover local politicians; it is literally their journalistic duty to report on who was elected mayor of their town. Thus, hyper-local news articles like [78] constitutes what I would consider to be superficial and typical coverage, routine in thousands upon thousands of communities. Without wide coverage, there has to be something that sets her mayoral tenure apart, whether that be a notable policy that generated coverage or a significant position or something like that. The subject has simply not been written about in-depth enough to justify an argument for WP:NPOL#2 and the hyper-local coverage that does exist isn't satisfactory for WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    KATU, which you cite as "hyper-local", is the ABC News affiliate for the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area (population: 2.5 million people - about the size of the Orlando area). The oregonlive.com website is Portland's Oregonian, the second largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest; it's won 8 Pullitzer Prizes.
    The closing admin will follow the guidance I quoted above in my "keep" comment. They'll look at the articles I cited and decide for themselves.
    -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to its article, KATU-TV is owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which should be taken into consideration when assessing the source. Beccaynr (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even The Washington Post and The New York Times, two of the country's premier newspapers, provide coverage of local affairs that have little demonstrative notability, so the argument about how many Pulitzer Prizes an outlet has is pretty irrelevant here. Regardless, The Oregonian source that you provided ([79]) is mostly coverage of someone else, with the subject receiving barely a passing mention. Curbon7 (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Biznaga22 and A. B., subject only to some personal wariness of the long-term maintainability of articles at this level. But I did a ctrl-F on Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) to make sure that nothing had changed since my last checkin, and have confirmed neither of these guidelines excludes local coverage. Nor should they: such an exclusion would have the effect of backdooring notability into a test of the significance of the article subject, which is not and never has been the standard. Full-length profiles are not, in general, examples of WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    The fundamental question in notability is: is there an adequate quantity of suitable source material for an article? I think the sources cited in the above discussion make it clear that there is. As to the reliability of local sources, I think they meet the crucial threshold of being sources of the kind that experts in the field would rely on. I am no expert on Oregon municipal politics, but I cannot imagine that any expert in that field would prefer the NYT (for example) to a local source. As a character in my favorite forgotten 1990s drama stated, the paper of record somehow invariably manages to get some important detail wrong. And while Sinclair affiliation is something to keep an eye on, in my own limited experience elsewhere Sinclair stations tend to play local politics pretty straight. In sum, as there is adequate material to build an article from, and nothing here appears to bump up against the guardrails of WP:NOT or WP:BLP, there is no basis for deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and easily and strongly so - mayors are not inherently notable and she has not received any non-local press. The "national" references aren't really national references, they're just conferences or development programmes she attended. The fact other mayors have articles isn't proof of anything and there's at least one of those articles which also doesn't pass notability standards. And it's absolutely WP:ROUTINE for a mayor to have a feature article printed in a local newspaper - that's the point of local newspapers! There's nothing here showing she's a notable politician at all outside the city she's in charge of. (If there's a list of mayors of Beaverton, that would be a valid redirect target.)
SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is routine coverage? WP:SBST, a subsection of our main notability guideline, says this:
    • "For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."
    WP:SIGCOV (a.k.a. WP:GNG, gives the rationale, which I believe clinches the argument for this article:
    • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
    This definitely applies to this mayor -- there is substantial independent coverage of her in multiple reliable sources to support this article.
    WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (events). Mayor Beatty is not an event.
    Wikipedia:Notability (people) is instead the applicable guideline. Here's what the guideline says at the very top ("Basic criteria"):
    • "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
      • "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."
    WP:NPOL is the subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that mentions politicians. Referring to local politicians it says:
    • "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."
    The article cites full-length reliable, independent news coverage of this mayor.
    These are our guidelines and they're what the closing admin will use to decide this case.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of this is correct - local politicians frequently only receive coverage in local papers, and that coverage itself is WP:ROUTINE. If that were true, then every mayor in every town would always be notable, considering mayoral elections always generate coverage - but that's not the case, and we use a combination of common sense and the scope of the media coverage to determine whether someone should have a stand-alone article written about them. SportingFlyer T·C 20:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting although I see a slight edge to those advocating Keeping this article. But it seems to rest on differing interpretations of Notability and Routine and how they apply to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia now has more than its share of "the first X to be Y" type of articles, so piling-on makes it seem more like intereating trivia rather than notable fact. The office is not inherently notable, so there isn't really much justification. 128.252.154.9 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The office is not inherently notable, so there isn't really much justification" does not make sense. you have not provided a valid reason for deletion per policy. Do not post nonsense.
    This IP voter is very suspect Naomijeans (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at the IP's 5 contributions - they all seem legit. IP is registered to Washington University. I disagree with their !vote and their reasoning but comment doesn't seem to have been made in bad faith. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "first X to be Y" doesn't automatically constitute notability. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE as well, the office itself also lacks notability. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not sufficient that Beaty is the first female and youngest mayor of Beaverton, so this is not a case of "the first X to be Y." The article should be kept because Beaty meets the "general notability guideline." As A. B. pointed out, the WP:ROUTINE guideline is meant for events. Since this is a biography of a living person, we should be looking at the "general notability guideline" under WP:NOTABILITY, which is required under the politicians and judges section of WP:NOTABILITY (people). This policy states that, "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." WP:SIGCOV is met since there is enough source material to write an accurate biography without "original research." Additionally, I don't see any arguments for deletion that accurately refute the reliability or the independence of the sources in the article. Biznaga22 (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If WP:ROUTINE were used only for events, every mayor in every town would be notable, but we use WP:ROUTINE in every article - not just events - for its clear guidance on interpreting coverage: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. And mayoral elections are the very basis of routine - every village, town, and city in the United States has them at specified intervals, and they always receive routine coverage. The coverage for this particular article does not rise above routine coverage - if she had received coverage outside her metropolitan area, for instance, then I'd be on the keep side, but that's not the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "If WP:ROUTINE were used only for events, every mayor in every town would be notable, but we use WP:ROUTINE in every article - not just events…"
    If, however, you apply WP:ROUTINE anyway, here are the examples it gives as "routine":
    • "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."
    None of those examples apply to the coverage we're citing, all of which met newsworthiness requirements when published.
    -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Analysis of the sources

    Lacey Beaty received significant coverage in The Oregonian, which is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest. She received additional coverage in other Oregon sources like the Beaverton Valley Times, KATU, KGW, Oregon Public Broadcasting, the Portland Business Journal, and the Portland Tribune. This is sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges, which says, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

    WP:ROUTINE, which redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage, does not apply to Lacey Beaty because she is a person, not an event.

    Sources

    1. Bray, Kari (2014-05-21). "Lacey Beaty's city council win is bittersweet as husband leaves for Afghanistan". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.

      The article notes: "Lacey Beaty is a U.S. Army veteran who has also served overseas, three years in Germany and one in Iraq. She previously told the Beaverton Leader that she struggled to reintegrate into civilian life, and Beaverton gave her the stability and support she needed. That’s part of what motivated her to run for council."

    2. Bray, Kari (2014-02-12). "Lacey Beaty files to run against Ian King for Beaverton City Council seat". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.

      The article notes: "Beaverton lacrosse coach and U.S. Army veteran Lacey Beaty has filed to run against Beaverton City Councilor Ian King in this year’s election. ... Beaty, 29, has lived in Beaverton since 2008 with her husband, Ian Beaty. She moved to Oregon after serving in the U.S. Army, including three years in Germany and one in Iraq. ... Beaty is currently vice chair of the Beaverton Visioning Advisory Committee. She coaches lacrosse at Beaverton High School, is vice chair on the HomePlate Youth Services Board of Directors and serves on the Leadership Beaverton Board of Directors."

    3. Bray, Kari (2014-03-12). "Six candidates vying for three Beaverton City Council seats". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.

      The article notes: "Council position 1: Lacey Beaty • 29 • Lacrosse coach Past public service • Vice chairwoman of the Beaverton Visioning Advisory Committee • Vice chairwoman on HomePlate Youth Services Board of Directors • Leadership Beaverton Board of Directors Other • Served in the U.S. Army, including three years in Germany and one in Iraq"

    4. Alteir, Nuran (2014-12-31). "Incoming Beaverton City Councilor Lacey Beaty wants a defined downtown, warming shelter". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.

      The article notes: "Beaverton City Council has a new face this week after community activist and U.S. Army veteran Lacey Beaty was set to be sworn in Tuesday. Beaty, who has lived in Beaverton since 2008, served as vice chair on the city’s Visioning Advisory Committee, was vice chair on HomePlate Youth Services board of directors, and was on the Leadership Beaverton board of directors. She had no intention to run for City Council."

    5. Notarianni, John (2020-11-08). "Beaverton's new mayor, Lacey Beaty, will have a very different role". Oregon Public Broadcasting. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.

      The article notes: "Beaverton City Councilor Lacey Beaty defeated incumbent Denny Doyle in the election. He’d been mayor of the city since 2009. ... Beaty has been a member of the Beaverton City Council since 2015."

    6. Bishop, Lauren (2023-03-14). "Beaty touts accomplishments, work ahead in Beaverton's 2023 State of the City". Beaverton Valley Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.

      The article notes: "Homelessness, the Downtown Loop and community safety were key highlights as Mayor Lacey Beaty reflected on the last year and looked toward the future during the annual State of the City address Monday evening, March 12. At the Patricia Reser Center for the Arts, Beaty shared with the packed in-person crowd the city's successes in 2022 and gave residents a glimpse of what to expect in 2023. Beaty brought up the challenge of addressing homelessness just one minute into her remarks during the State of the City, after thanking notable members of the audience for attending the event."

    7. Articles from Gabby Urenda in Beaverton Valley Times:
      1. Urenda, Gabby (2020-11-10). "Beaverton Mayor-elect Lacey Beaty shares plans for city's future". Beaverton Valley Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.

        The article notes: "Beaverton residents have spoken, and Lacey Beaty will be the city's new mayor. The mayor-elect defeated incumbent Denny Doyle in last week's general election on Tuesday, Nov. 3, by a margin of about 7 percentage points. Doyle conceded the race the following day"

      2. Urenda, Gabby (2020-11-10). "Lacey Beaty will be first woman to serve as Beaverton mayor". Portland Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.

        The article notes: "Beaty will be the first woman to serve as mayor of Beaverton. ... Beaty also wants to have public safety at the forefront — more specifically, making sure the right people are doing the right work when it comes to community safety policing, she added. ... She will officially be sworn in as mayor at the Beaverton City Council's first regular meeting in January."

    8. "Forty Under 40 2022: Mayor Lacey Beaty of Beaverton". Portland Business Journal. 2022-05-11. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.

      The article notes: "Why we chose Lacey: She’s transforming Beaverton city government, literally, as the city is transitioning from a commission form of government to a city manager form of government. The changes come as Beaverton, economically, becomes more of an extension of, as opposed to a complement to, Portland. She’s also an Army veteran, who served as a medic in Iraq."

    9. Graves, Lincoln (2020-11-06). "Beaverton set to get new progressive mayor after longtime incumbent defeated". KATU. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.

      The article notes: "Longtime incumbent Denny Doyle was defeated by progressive challenger Lacey Beaty. ... Beaty is fine with the progressive label but she also stresses that she's her own person and Beaverton has its own identity separate from Portland. ... Beaty begins her term as Beaverton mayor on Jan. 1."

    10. Porter, Laural (2021-02-05). "Newly-elected mayors of Portland's suburbs break barriers". KGW. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.

      The article notes: "For Mayor Beaty, that busy month ended in a weekend skiing accident on Timberline. She tore her meniscus and was scheduled for surgery Friday. ... Beaty said she's spent a lot of her first weeks in office explaining to businesses and other officials the city interacts with how their new system of government works. Beaverton voters approved a city charter change to a mayor-city manager form of government with a full-time mayor. She's also spending a lot of time listening to people."

    11. Owen, Wendy (2015-02-27). "Beaverton's Mark Fagin and Lacey Beaty appointed to National League of Cities". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.

      The article notes: "Beaty was appointed to the Human Development steering committee ... Beaty's work will include development of federal policy positions for the National League of Cities on social services, children and learning, poverty, employment and workforce development, social security and seniors,"

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

    Cunard (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Luhansk People's Republic#Government and politics. Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peace to Luhanshchyna

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

Fails to satisfy WP:GNG. No reliable sources cited.  —Michael Z. 03:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to satisfy WP:GNG. No reliable sources cited.--Panam2014 (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider a possible Redirect or Merge to suggested target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network)#Newscast. czar 02:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Live on 5

Live on 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Restored article without WP:BURDEN. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing to pass GNG. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bewitched episodes. There is no real consensus here but I'm going to go with a closure that does the least harm. If you want you can take this to DRV or WP:RFD if you care that much. I just doubt that a 3rd relist would bring in any additional editors. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bewitched home video releases

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

WP:NOTCATALOGUE, poorly sourced fancruft Ajf773 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of these “list of home video x” things have been deleted or are heading that way and I see no logic to a redirect, besides the general logic that Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap which doesn’t mean you should always redirect deletable material if there’s even the tiniest plausible excuse for one. Dronebogus (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Thanks for the work you did, User:Reading Beans. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Muhammad Ketso

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

While a one sentence political biography can provide some general notability, the article lacks WP:SIGCOV. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources; is missing information about Early life, more Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours. JoeNMLC (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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! 04:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Averell Spicer

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and more broadly WP:BIO for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first Los Angeles Times piece from 2004 (here) has depth of coverage, but it's an article written when he was in high school, part of a series on "the Southland's top high school football players". It appears he showed great promise in high school and was a top recruit, but he sustained injuries in college and never quite made the grade at USC. Per WP:YOUNGATH, an in-depth profile from his high school playing career doesn't support a stand-alone article -- particularly where he didn't fulfill the promise when he got to the next level. Cbl62 (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second Los Angeles Times piece is an article seeking to answer the question of who would replace Sedrick Ellis, USC's star nose tackle (headline: "Trojans look for stopgap measures" to fill the hole at nose tackle). Spicer was one of the "stopgap" measures to replace Ellis and thus received some coverage. USC during the Pete Carroll years was one of the super-programs where even a backup (or "stopgap") nose tackle received some coverage, but the fact remains that Averell never made the cut (whether due to injury or whatever) and doesn't IMO warrant a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn‎ by nom after new sources provided. Katietalk 03:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kid in a Candy Store

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines for TV and GNG. Deleted in 2022 via PROD, but refunded with no improvements in a year since. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Chicle sin azúcar" [Gum without sugar]. El Universo (in Spanish). 2012-11-23. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "At an accelerated rhythm, the program develops similarly to other culinary realities. Without surprises, its driver arrives in each town and city in search of a specific delicacy; Meet its creators, talks about the benefits of the product and their differentiating qualities while proving an infinite sample of candies and chocolates in order to return to the viewer to an era when they did not fear caries. While there are other programs in this category, Kid in A Candy Store does not have that element that elevates other productions, a charismatic driver. Gertler does not arouse any sympathy during his different presentations. Despite his effort and development before the cameras, he fails to convey the flavors and sensations of the tasted, providing an tasteless adventure among so many candy and caught cookies."

    2. Crook, John (2010-07-11). "'Kid in a Candy Store' is a sweet treat". The Dispatch / The Rock Island Argus. Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The series follows Gertler as he tours the U.S. in search of unusual, delicious and beloved sweet treats, as well as new insight into how those treats are made. ... One episode takes Gertler inside the Treats Truck that tours Manhattan selling "dessert nachos" and gigantic Rice Krispie Treats (watch closely for Gertler's real mom and dad in that sequence), as well as the Creole Creamery in New Orleans, which specializes in ice creams that incorporate such unusual ingredients as sweet corn, peppercorns and roasted beats. ... The episode will also feature watermelon taffy from Salt Lake City, Utah, and sweet corn ice cream from New Orleans. ... "Kid in a Candy Store" combines the format of Gertler's 2009 Food Network series, "Will Work for Food" and a special he hosted for the network called "Extreme Sweets.""

    3. Feliciano, Sophia (2011-05-04). "San Antonio Tootie pie-sicles to debut on Food Network's Candy Store". San Antonio Current. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The article notes: "But for those who are most serious about the last course of a proper sit-down dinner - the dessert - the one to watch is Adam Gertler, host of the Food Network's Kid in a Candy Store. With the Tootie Pie Gourmet Café on Broadway flooded with lights, cameras, and free pies, I got the chance to observe the ever-animated Gertler play a culinary Peter Pan up close. Between takes playing an adoring customer, I peppered Gertler with questions. The cast was pretty type-based - a wide-eyed little girl, the all-American dad, the dynamic friend, or the jovial grandma - and each table was given a variety of pies to delve into, such as Buttercream, Key Lime Margarita, and Apple."

    4. Flores, Melissa (2011-03-25). "Scrum-diddly-umptious". Hollister Free Lance. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The article notes: "Eating candy might not seem like work, but Adam Gertler has made it into a career. He hosts the Food Network show “Kid in a Candy Store,” which airs Monday nights at 8:30 p.m. and he just happened to be in Hollister to film a segment of his show last week. During the two-day shoot, he made sampling the gourmet candy apples at DeBrito’s Chocolate Factory, on Briggs Road, look fun on camera despite the hard work that goes on behind the scenes. DeBrito’s segment is tentatively scheduled to air in May 9. ... Gertler and the crew arrived March 16 morning, with shooting going from noon to 8:30 p.m. They filmed on March 17 from 8 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., and it was off to the next location after that. The crew stayed nearby in the Best Western San Benito Inn. ... For the show, Gertler visits candy stores, bakeries and sweet factories all over the United States. Each show features at least three locations, so the job keeps him on the road during the September through April filming period. ... Before Gertler shows up on the set, he is given a little background information on the location but he said he prefers not to know too much so his reactions are more natural onscreen."

    5. Kinon, Cristina (2010-07-07). "This 'Candy' man just keeps on truckin'". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "New York's Tasty Treats Truck tantalizes Food Network's Adam Gertler in a new primetime series, "Kid in a Candy Store," debuting on Monday at 8. "Kid in a Candy Store" features Gertler, a former contestant on "The Next Food Network Star," traveling the country to find the most creative and most delicious candy, cakes and snacks. The Treats Truck will be featured in the second episode of the night, airing at 8:30, when Gertler's journey brings him to New York City."

    6. Schiele, Elizabeth (2010-07-07). "'Kid in a Candy Store' on Food Network". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Adam Gertler of "The Next Food Network Star" launches a new television series, "Kid in a Candy Store," featuring food truck fare, down-home delights and wacky twists on favorites such as deep-fried cupcakes and sweet beet ice cream. The first episode, "Take the Cake," takes Gertler to bakeries across the country, including Chicago's Lutz Cafe and Pastry Shop, where he learns how to prepare baumkuchen by roasting the cake in layers. Future episodes will include Chicago institutions iCream and Bleeding Heart Bakery."

    7. Fralic, Shelley (2011-04-11). "Reality shows offer relief from usual nightly fare. Bliss in TV's suburbs". Windsor Star. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Kid in a Candy Store (foodnetwork.ca for schedule of upcoming episodes) Here's hoping this new entry is less cloying than Unwrapped, the cheesy show that follows Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives most nights. This new sweet treat promises a bit more edge, as energetic host Adam Gertler (a comic-book collector, barbecue chef and former contestant on The Next Food Network Star) hits the highway in a six-part series in search of creative snacks like sweet beet ice cream and deep-fried cupcakes."

    8. Harris, Bill (2011-04-06). "New Season: Kids in a Candy Store crosses border". The Kingston Whig-Standard. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Both the second-season premiere of The Cupcake Girls on W, and the Canadian debut of Kid in a Candy Store on the Food Network, air Wednesday. ... Speaking of which, Kid in a Candy Store follows Adam Gertler as he criss-crosses the U.S. in search of the weirdest desserts. That means everything from margarita taffy to what appears to be no-melt ice cream."

    9. Philpot, Robert (2010-07-12). "Channel surfing". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Kid in a Candy Store: The charmingly goofy Adam Gertler, who didn't win when he competed on Next Food Network Star, gets a Food Network series, and it's a gig many people would consider a winner: traveling the country, finding the most outrageous sweet treats, which aren't limited to candy. Two episodes air; the first includes a visit to Holy Cacao, Austin's "gourmet dessert trailer." 7 and 7:30 p.m., Food"

    10. "Sinfully Sweet Apple Co. to appear on TV". Redlands Daily Facts. 2010-07-13. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The article notes: "When the Food Network came knocking a few weeks ago, the attention was the delicious topping to a whirlwind of growth for La Verne-based Sinfully Sweet Apple Co., a two-year-old dessert maker. The network is set to feature the caramel apple company on a show that debuted this week, “Kid in a Candy Store,” which sends host Adam Gertler on a quest for the tastiest and most creative treats in the U.S. The episode, “Eye Candy,” is planned to air July 26."

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

    Cunard (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider recently found sources that have been added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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! 02:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full Throttle Theatre Company

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

A search for sources in gnews yields almost all local sources failing WP:AUD. No significant coverage found in gbooks or Australian search engine Trove. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_June_23&oldid=1161562119"