Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 06	July 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect Order of Saint Catherine with Mount Sinai to Saint Catherine's Monastery and delete Poltorzhitsky. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Saint Catherine with Mount Sinai

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

Hoaxes by indef blocked user Victor Freeknight. Siradan (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article by the same user:

Redirect Order of Saint Catherine with Mount Sinai to Saint Catherine's Monastery. There's at least one reliable source that shows that the order may have existed, and another source (unsure of reliability) that says that their existence in a formal sense is questionable. I'm not able to find enough reliable sources about the order itself to warrant a separate article, but the monastery is certainly notable. ~~I have no opinion on Poltorzhitsky at this time.~~ After looking at Poltorzhitsky I'd be for deleting it per Andrei Romanenko below. The article is a non encyclopedic mess that could use WP:TNT. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The main author was not the only user to contribute to the article and it might have some notability. I am not refined with the sources to consider them to be reliable for GNG, so a redirect seems more appropriate. As for Poltorzhitsky, it just seems to be a translation of the Russian page. I don't know if it's notable for the English article. Conyo14 (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's simpler to delete Poltorzhitsky then to save it. The whole article is googletranslated beginning with its pseudo-English name Poltorzhitsky (instead of original spelling Półtorzycki). This family of Polish nobility with Tartarian roots really existed and the Polish historian pl:Stanisław Dziadulewicz had several pages about it in his seminal Herbarz rodzin tatarskich w Polsce (1929), pp. 255-258 here. But few sentences from this really reliable source are lost in the present article amidst tons of irresponsible ranting. In Russian, however, I had rewritten it into more or less tolerable stub ru:Полторжицкие, if anybody is willing to translate it into English to replace the article under scrutiny - you are welcome. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that context, it might be better as a draft to translate the stub article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and definitely a hoax, the only references (outside of the books with no page numbers suspiciously) are the websites of the several of these "orders". Some of their images (like their grandmaster's) are AI-generated too.JamesKnowsJames (talk) 06:33, 14 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Design Magazine

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

Fails WP:GNG and has a severe lack of independent coverage needed to establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references to indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERIODICAL. --My Pants Metal (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and potentially add a sentence or so if appropriate into Harvard Graduate School of Design but substantially trim down useless cruft Graywalls (talk). Changing ! vote as substantial public relations editing has been detected in article space. 23:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message at Talk:Harvard Graduate School of Design#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard Design Magazine asking for comments at this AfD and noting the possibility that the magazine article might best be merged into the grad school article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should also be judged against WP:NJOURNALS (an essay but widely used). Perhaps someone who follows WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academic journals and understands journals will weigh in here. My own search finds lot of articles out there that reference this magazine.

I'll also note that from another AfD, I've learned design people love to write about each other in countless reliable sources. (None are magazines you'll see at a hardware store or a Wal-Mart.)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A JSTOR search turns up 23 books or journals that cite this magazine. There are none about the magazine.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Scholar search shows many articles in this publication that are each cited dozens of times. I got as far as the 30th page of results (that's 300 articles cited) and stopped -- there were still more search result pages to go.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJOURNAL is only an essay and given that as far as I can tell, its not linked from notability guideline pages, so I don't believe it's even a widely vetted essay. WP:NBOOK SNG specifically says magazines are excluded. So I believe magazine falls into NCORP or GNG. I am not sure how to interpret the citation quantity result. I remember someone doing a comparative analysis against books/journals of similar types and see if it was extraordinary. WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't really an argument. That essay is linked from several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Graywalls (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This journal is indexed in Scopus and MIAR.^[1] Hence, it meets WP:NJOURNALS guidelines. However, it can definitely use some cleanup. Nanosci (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Harvard Design Magazine". MIAR: Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals. University of Barcelona. Retrieved 1 January 2025.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its Index inclusions show that it is both notable and well known. Established in the late 20th century, the magazine, from a major college, has both history and continuous publication continuity. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Horrible article needing a ton of work, but indexing in Scopus (from 2009 to 2019, from 2021 to 2022) meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between the inclusion in selective indices and coverage of its offshoots (e.g., [1][2][3]), I think there's enough to justify a page. Regarding the conversation above, Google Scholar is a search engine specialized for finding academic papers (though its standards for what to include are somewhat loose). GS showing that a person or a publication is widely cited will generally be more informative than an ordinary Google search returning a lot of hits, which is pretty much meaningless. XOR'easter (talk) 22:55, 18 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!} 22:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of ŠK Slovan Bratislava award winners and top goal scorers

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

As someone who regularly edits articles related to ŠK Slovan Bratislava, I dare to say that this few (out-of-date and incomplete) information can easily be in the main article and there is no need to create a separate article. Penepi (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 11 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 Narada Productions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flamenco: Fire and Grace

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

Fails GNG and NALBUM. Only source is associated with label. Answers.com 'source' is inexplicable, really. Not a notable compilation. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found an AllMusic review, but nothing else that wasn't ads or brief mentions. And with nothing else, I say redirect to Narada Productions, though it might be worth a section on that page since it's also quite bare bones. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with Narada Productions. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to support an explicit merge vote as well, though given how few participants are here I do worry it might not get done in a timely manner. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:22, 26 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 Narada Productions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Flamenco!

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

Non-notable compilation album. Promotional lead copied from label's website. Fails NALBUM. The external links are related to the artists and not this album, and they do nothing to establish notability. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Narada Productions: Found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per QuietHere. The Narada Productions article didn't mention this album or its friend until just now, but I have added them to the list of compilation albums there. IMO if these are redirected it would be ideal to merge the refs -- I have not done so yet, however, to avoid any appearance of short-circuiting the outcome of this discussion. -- Visviva (talk) 04:32, 17 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 draftify‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J. Willoughby Jr.

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks the needed SIGCOV. Also does not meet WP:NJUDGE as it currently stands. Let'srun (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:04, 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 draftify‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judith E. Pipe

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JUDGE. Let'srun (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:04, 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 draftify‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine E. Oler

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

Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NJUDGE. A case of a article being created WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:04, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zachari Logan

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

I can't find any sources independent of the subject, and most of the article consists of a list of his works. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article looks promo, but I can find enough coverage about him. The first is rather small [4], the rest are better [5], [6] and [7] Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt CBC articles about "Future 40" subjects can be considered independent secondary coverage and say too much about notability, "Future 40" is a contest about promising subjets under the age of 40 from the Saskatchewan province in which every candidate gets coverage in the website. Looking at the winners I see a lot of people who merit appreciation but are in the end low-profile individuals in terms of encyclopedic value. I see participation in such a contest more as a sign that you are not notable rather than the other way around. Also this profile was written by the subject himself, and is apparently copied word for word from his own website. This page seems to me a clear case of WP:TOO SOON. Cavarrone 06:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep numerous works in public collections, prestigious shows and residencies. The article should be rewritten in less pretentious manner Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets inclusion if the numerous exhibitions, museum holdings, and references are to be believed. And per Hermann Heilner Giebenrath. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to verify another collection. He meets criteria 4 of WP:NARTIST. The article should be kept. Netherzone (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I cleared out the CV aspects of the article and hope it is more encyclopedic now. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Covered in Boston Globe, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The StarPhoenix, etc. APK whisper in my ear 09:17, 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Jones Bosier

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

Article fails WP:NJUDGE and doesn't meet any GNG guidelines. Even if it met NJUDGE, this would be a case of BIOSPECIAL. Let'srun (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:05, 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lam Nguyen

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted previously for failing WP:JUDGE and it is still the case. This one doesn't pass any WP:GNG guidelines either. Let'srun (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:05, 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenechukwu Onyemaechi Okocha

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

Nominee fails WP:GNG and WP:NJUDGE. Even if NJUDGE was reached, this would still be a case of WP:BIOSPECIAL, and as it is this is another case of a page being created WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft per precedents cited above. BD2412 T 00:45, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PACE Sports Management

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:NCORP. Kleuske (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, and Sports. Kleuske (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. The ones I found that were in-depth are mainly about the founder. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References are pointing to the director of the company, not the company itself. No references showed the notability of the company, failing WP:NCORP. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:46, 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. At this point there's no consensus that I can see. No prejudice to a renomination in, say, a month from now if there's no clear improvement. Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumaya Alnasser

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

Hello all,

First: The article does not meet the criteria for personalities, there are no real achievements, and it is clear that the article was created for promotional purposes only.

Second: The article was deleted four times from the Arabic Wikipedia, and whoever created this article was banned due to vandalism and published the article over and over again.

Obviously, this article is for promotional purposes only. Osps7 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Osps7 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I totally disagree with you. Actually it meets the criteria for personalities, She is famous, has real achievements, popular in her country. Always appear in TV shows. She got several prizes. She is very well known business women. Google her name in Arabic (سمية الناصر) you will find many trusted sources. Mazin suliman (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I reviewed the Arabic version of this article which was deleted by you.

First of all: the Arabic version was direct translation of the English version. It is not new article. The translation took place after the English version was published.

Second: The user was not banned. You got in conflict with him. As result you came here to English Wikipedi and ask for deletion of this article to force your opinion which is not fair.

Again, the article meet meet the criteria for personalities. She got several achievements and got many international prizes. She is famous and popular. Mazin suliman (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage. Other than CNN, rest are non-RS or promo. I only find two hits in Gnews, neither of which seems like much. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oaktree,

Thank you so much for your replay. regarding the coverage, I can mention more than 100 trusted sources.

Here are examples:

Forbes Middle east listed her among the top 100 influential women in middle east: see here name listed in #98

[8]Forbes Middle east

Also, English Vogue and Arabic Vogue talked about her

Other popral trusted sources: Mille , ELLE, harpersbazaararabia. Haya, abouther Hia, popsugar, Youm7 , Okaz (government newspaper), Sayidaty, al-madina (government newspaper) , gheir, foochia, almarsal, hayatouki., healthmagazine, all of these magazines, websites, newspapers talked about. I can add more if you want.

Kindly, take into account the following topic Women's rights in Saudi Arabia which may create many challenges. Mazin suliman (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Oaktree b, I improved and edited the article by adding more reliable sources. I hope this addressed your conncrns. Thank you for your comments. Mazin suliman (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the personal squabbles to yourselves, we're here to review the article on the quality of the sources. The rest is immaterial. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Thank you so much. Mazin suliman (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting with the comment that "Famous and popular =/= Being Notable on Wikipedia"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've gone through the article and according to my knowledge it meets the notability guidelines for WP:BLP and criteria for WP:Notability (people). As per the research, the subject has many credible citations and mentions on notable platforms, newspapers, and media outlets. Therefore, it can be improved and made better in future.

I think the below source is not merely a passing mention and can be used:

The National News

The below link also clarifies the fact that she was among the top 100 influential women in middle east. Furthermore, I think the source is quite reliable as well.

Gulf News

Moreover, I've removed the amazon book listing link the article had. --Leojuan (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The listed sources do not have any international reference, and I suspect that they are paid news.

Also, the discussion is to delete the article, not to gather votes!! Osps7 (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Osps7. I guess you're mistaken here. You should have gone with UDP (Undisclosed paid) tag, and not deletion right away. You've opened a deletion/discussion log for this article, which makes clear sense to me that it needs suggestions/votes to either keep it or remove it. Coming back to the fact where you mentioned that the listed sources do not have any international reference. Can you elaborate on that? Gulf News is considered to be an international source to my knowledge. Maybe I'm wrong here. But it still doesn't make any sense to open a deletion page and not taking suggestions for keeping or deleting the article. Thank you! Leojuan (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The articles from The National (Abu Dhabi) (1) and Arab News (2)look okay to me (although they seem quite promotional), but I don't see much other significant coverage. Other editors should assess if those sources are sufficiently independent and reliable to constitute WP:SIGCOV. Suriname0 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems we have basic here. Okoslavia (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to hear from some experienced editors. I'll admit I'm skeptical of "lifestyle coaches" no matter what their nationality. Coaching is an interpersonal activity and it's hard to demonstrate notability in it. I also wonder how she could have possibly, at 41 years of age, trained 200,000 people...that's a small country! So while there is a rough consensus to Keep, I'm skeptical enough about the claims of the article to warrant a third relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on searching the title of the Arab News source "Peace without Borders announces first Saudi peace ambassador", this appears primarily based on a press release, which includes the extraordinary claim, "She has trained more than 200 thousand people". Beccaynr (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Liz, I share your skepticism about 200,000 trainees. I've spent 2 hours on refs. Sadly, I went through all the chaff before finding the reliable stuff. Ms. Alnasser, to a certain extent is famous for being famous in the Middle East. Also, from reading the local news coverage in translation, some of her fame is the novelty of her messages (such as self-care for women) in Saudi Arabia - stuff that seems self-evident in other cultures. She is also a great self-promoter.
Looking at the sources:
- - Vogue, Mille, Hia are interviews. See Wikipedia:Interviews.
  - Harper's Bazaar article appears to be written by Sumaya Alnasser
  - Haya-online.com is used as a ref in only one article.[9]
  - AboutHer.com is owned by Saudi Research and Media Group. We use it as a ref on 50+ articles.[10] The article is bylined and gushy.
  - PopSugar is an article/interview hybrid.
  - youm7.com is very brief
  - The foochia.com article is too short. It's fluffy. Only 5 articles use that site as a ref. Similar issues are with refs to gheir.com (3 article use that site) and healthmagazine.ae (3 article use that site).
  - "Peace without borders" is a 3-word phrase that shows up many times. The organization mentioned in the article seems non-notable. The domain pwbparis.org no longer works; here is Archive.org's history
    The Kawa, Okaz, Gulf Daily News, almrsal.com articles are brief articles about Sumaya Alnasser winning their award or being named a peace ambassador.
  - The hayatouki.com link didn't work.
  - The Forbes Middle East article ranks Sumaya Alnasser 98th on the list of 100.
(Warning, my web translator did a very poor job with this article- another honoree's name was translated from Arabic as "Orgasm of the Runes")
- - See WP:FORBES. This is probably a reliable list.
    
    The Sayidaty article is about the Forbes list. Ms. Alnasser gets a sentence.
    
    The Gulf News article gives less than a sentence.
  - The National (Abu Dhabi) article is a solid in-depth profile.
The Sayidaty Award for Excellence and Creativity seems like a legit honor (compared to 98th on the Forbes list and the mythical Peace without borders honor)

Here is the Arab Wikipedia deletion log.(Google translated version) Interestingly, one of the deleted articles was created by a now globally banned admin with 200,000+ edits. Looking for a paid editor for your bio - go for the top guy!

Conclusion: String together the solid The National (Abu Dhabi) article, the non-interview part of the PopSugar article + maybe a few pieces of other stuff (carefully selected) and I find marginal notability. That said, I won't cry if Liz deletes this.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Content substantially similar to the press release also appears in the 2018 source by The National (Abu Dhabi): Saudi life coach Sumayah Alnasser: 'The more I meditated, the more I noticed everything improving', including a "more than 200,000 clients around the world" claim. The National source is largely based on her statements and has a focus on promoting her meditation CD The Back Door - the writer does not provide their own secondary commentary about the CD. The 2018 Vogue interview The First Female Saudi Life Coach on Her Top Tips for Success says she "delivers courses in Arabic to thousands of clients worldwide," and offers several "quick-fire tips" (quotes) from Al-Nasser, and promotes The Back Door at the end of the interview. The 2018 Health Magazine source noted above, "The Path to Loving Yourself – Renowned Saudi Life Coach, Dr. Sumaya Alnasser on Cultivating Self-Relationship" is a press release; the Gulf News source noted above UAE expats among 100 most Influential women in Middle East is reporting on a Forbes list and the presence of some expats on the list for the first time - Al-Nasser is only briefly mentioned in a reprinting of the full Forbes list of 100 most influential women in the Middle East: "98. Sumaya Al-Nasser, Founder, Sumaya 369". Beccaynr (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there does not appear to be sufficient support available for WP:BASIC notability at this time, and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. In my comments above, I identified sources that appear to draw on press release content and/or are based on interviews, and/or otherwise lack secondary context or commentary to help support notability. Other sources include a 2018 Pop Sugar interview You're Meditating Wrong, According to This Saudi Life Coach which includes a quote of what she "previously said" and quotes from what she says, followed by "five steps to getting started" with meditation that are not clearly attributed to her. I think reporting on the Forbes list can help show its significance; an Al Riyadh (newspaper) source was added to the article (Google translated: "Six Saudi women are on the Forbes list of the most influential women in the Middle East") and states (translated), "As for the last Saudi woman in the Forbes list, Sumaya Al-Nasser, the founder of the “Sumaya 369” company specialized in the consulting sector, ranked 98 in the classification.") However, an Argaam source, titled 6 Saudi women on Forbes most influential list repeats the "has trained more than 200,000 people" press release claim in its blurb about her. The Forbes list itself says (Google translated): "Founder, Sumaya 369, consulting sector, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia". And as noted above, there are various sources briefly reporting announcements, e.g. Okaz about the 2018 Peace Without Borders peace ambassador with a brief general blurb about her work; Al Madina (newspaper), reporting (Google translated) "The Prince of Al-Sharqiya honors 20 Saudi winners of the Sayidaty Award for Excellence and Creativity"; she is listed as one of two honored in the humanitarian and social work category. In the 2019 CNN interview source, (Google translated), there is "the presenter’s astonishment that she holds a doctorate in interpretation and the sciences of the Qur’an and is not veiled" reported, which seems more substantial than interviews promoting her CD or offering tips on success or meditation, etc. While she appears to have some independent recognition, most sources appear promotional and/or lack independence, reliability, or the secondary context or commentary needed to support notability and help develop a neutral and balanced article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, Your assessment is different from mine, so the admin should probably look at the two I noted and decide for themselves.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the policy reasons supporting my !vote: I used a search method that can be helpful for identifying advertisements masquerading as articles, i.e. finding press release content incorporated into other sources, particularly in sources with other signs of promotion, such as The National, with its reliance on her statements and lack of independent secondary commentary on her work, while other sources, such as Vogue and Al Riyadh, do not repeat the extraordinary claim also made by the press release.
Our notability guideline has two prongs - first, whether there is support for GNG or its functional equivalent - there do not appear to be sufficient independent, reliable, and secondary sources with which we can build an encyclopedic article; second, whether this article should be excluded by the What Wikipedia is not policy - the sources largely appear to demonstrate that this article should be deleted, because of the need to protect the encyclopedia from promotion and advertising. Beccaynr (talk) 16:04, 30 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mink Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –dlthewave ☎ 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park, not notable enough for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 19:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park: the lake does not pass any notability guideline so it does not deserve its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Per Reywas92, this is not notable for a seperate article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:30, 11 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramshead Lake

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking guides (literally "we passed Ramshead Lake") and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –dlthewave ☎ 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park, not notable enough for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 19:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I agree with above. --Bduke (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park: the lake does not pass any notability guideline so it does not deserve its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Per Reywas92, this is not notable for a seperate article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:31, 11 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talus Lake

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking guides and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park, not notable enough for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree with above. --Bduke (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park: the lake does not pass any notability guideline so it does not deserve its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Per Reywas92, this is not notable for a seperate article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:31, 11 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Taminah

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL as no information beyond location and statistics has been shown to exist. The only non-map/database coverage in the article is a brief mention from a climbing guide, however this source just says that it is along a route used by climbers and contains no relevant discussion of the lake itself. A BEFORE search returned only similar passing mentions in hiking guides and the like. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park, not notable enough for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park per Reywas92. My search came up empty. Google Earth indicates lake is only 5 hectares (13 acres, 0.02 sq mi). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree with comments above. --Bduke (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park: the lake does not pass any notability guideline so it does not deserve its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Per Reywas92, this is not notable for a seperate article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:32, 11 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!} 18:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Holdings Corporation

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

non-notable holding corporation; the only "sources" listed are external links and I was only able to turn up press releases and the like ~T P W 16:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 16:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails CORP. The only thing I can find is about them opening a restaurant [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. --Bduke (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 11 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cirque Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated and "semi-procedurally" kept in 2022 based on the outcome of similar AfDs at the time as well as several "Keep" !votes based on WP:GEOLAND and WP:NEXIST. The article meets neither of these guidelines as NEXIST requires sources that, well, exist and GEOLAND requires sources with "verifiable information beyond simple statistics". The only non-map/database source is a climber's guide which mentions the lake in passing as a landmark on the way to a destination. This isn't SIGCOV and it tells us nothing about the lake itself aside from its relative location. Given the lack of additional coverage, deletion is appropriate in this case. –dlthewave ☎ 16:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 16:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park, not notable enough for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Earth view. Just 25 hectares. Image search turns up free government images of possible future use. "Cirque lake" also refers to a type of lake (a lake in a cirque), so a Google Search turns up many false hits - links to other lakes in cirques.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Per Reywas92, this is not notable for a seperate article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:15, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Malhan

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

Abhishek Malhan is failing WP:NYOUTUBER Nomadwikiholic (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - This article on Abhishek Malhan is not created on the basis of no. of subscribers on YouTube. He has featured on multiple popular news portal for his work like helping needy people, giveaway, pranks and participating in Indian reality show Bigg Boss. The sources are reliable, and provide significant coverage of him. SandeepKumarMeena (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - WP:NYOUTUBER is not a criterion, rather it mentions WP:GNG and WP:ENT as qualifying criteria. The subject disqualifies WP:GNG because despite

The subject having significant and non-trivial coverage by many independent reliable sources ^[1]^[2]^[3] (vide WP:ICTFSOURCES), the attention is not sustained, most of it coming from a recent reality show that the subject is taking part in (vide WP:NSUSTAINED). That being said, it is likely that the subject continues having significant coverage after the reality show has ended, as we have seen with past contestants of the reality show, and the article may be recreated at a later time when it does have sustained coverage. EnormityOP (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Abhishek Malhan aka Fukra Insaan says he's not threatened by television actors on Bigg Boss OTT 2: 'TV ka zamana gaya'". The Indian Express. 2023-06-23. Retrieved 2023-06-30.
^ "Bigg Boss OTT 2: "Develop Character, Talent Is Not Everything," Pooja Bhatt Tells Abhishek Malhan". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2023-06-30.
^ "Bigg Boss OTT 2: Abhishek Malhan, Jiya Shankar and Akanksha Puri nominated for eviction, fans call the show 'biased'". Hindustan Times. 2023-06-28. Retrieved 2023-06-30.

Keep. A quick WP:BEFORE demonstrates that this individual meets GNG eg [12][13] —siro χ o 10:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The no 1 news(Outlook) you mention is clearly a paid news as there is mentioned Outlook For Brands. And as per my knowledge paid article is not acceptable. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw the source on WP:ICTFSOURCES. !Vote retracted —siro χ o 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "who is he" article is fine, but it's barely a paragraph. [14] other people talking about his attitude on the show, doesn't help establish notability. All we have is trivial coverage or descriptions of his time on the show, nothing for notability. Rest are paid or fluff pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as 1E. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not yet have notability independent of Bigg Boss. The article is woefully under-referenced, but my own search for additional sources that don't talk about him in the context of that programme and might, therefore, help meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE drew a blank. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:57, 12 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regressive Left

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kato Crews

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominee has been reported by committee. Establishes eligibility as a magistrate judge who was nominated to district court judge. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent". Magistrate judges don't fulfill that criteria on its own. Let'srun (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios.

MIAJudges (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the Pueblo Chieftain sources and those regarding Internet question stumbles, for me, satisfy GNG. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meeting notability, low level judge, sources are basically talking about the appointment. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily agree; if the content and sources were restricted to the nomination itself, I'd go for deletion or draftification. But several of the later sources focus on Crews's stumbles in a confirmation hearing; that then is about him as opposed to the nomination itself. These stumbles aren't routine; that's why people and media have seized upon them. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG Andre🚐 03:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain your policy-based rationale for this article meeting GNG? Let'srun (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources currently in the article demonstrate that he meets WP:GNG. Specifically, there is coverage of him in major national outlets such as Bloomberg and NBC. Marquardtika (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kato Crews is a notable figure in the American judiciary, serving as a United States magistrate judge and currently nominated to serve as a district judge, positions of considerable relevance and influence in the legal landscape of the United States. The page cites reliable secondary sources, like judiciary committee documents, press releases from senators, and reputable news outlets that detail his professional career and accomplishments, thereby establishing the subject's notability. Should be kept I think. Bash7oven (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Current service as a federal magistrate judge meets WP:JUDGE. Valadius (talk) 03:02, 21 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Alopecia Areata Foundation

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

Fails WP:ORG. I thought of redirecting it to alopecia areata, but that article doesn't even mention the foundation. Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is significant coverage in [15] and a large number of Google Books hits that aren't freely accessible. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ULPS (talk) 15:59, 21 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 Oskar Braun. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ausgewählte Akten Persischer Märtyrer

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

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: actually, this has a much bigger internet footprint than I'd expect for a book more than 100 years old. People are still citing it in this century, so I think it must be well-known in its field, and thus notable after all. I don't have more time to go digging right now, but I've added a review to the references on the article. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This encyclopedia article about Braun says "Finally, Braun’s German translation of select Persian martyr acts (1915), based on P. Bedjan’s edition, should be singled out as another of his works that even after nearly a century has not been replaced and continues to be extremely useful."[16]. If nothing else, we should be able to use this encyclopedia article to create a stub about Braun and redirect the book title to the bio stub. Jahaza (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found another one of his books, reprinted in 2009 by Analecta Georgica, which reprints things that "are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries." That makes two books at least that are still being cited today despite their age - a clear WP:NPROF pass as far as I'm concerned. I'll start up a stub. No point in keeping this separate article unless someone is planning to expand it, so a redirect as you suggest seems like the best option. -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See: de:Ausgewählte Akten Persischer Märtyrer - much longer article although it relies on the same references. Jahaza has an interesting idea about an Oskar Braun article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree that an article on Braun seems to be possible with this article merged there, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oskar Braun, which I just created, see comment above. If anyone wishes to fill out the article further, please do go ahead. -- asilvering (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m cool with a redirect. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oskar Braun per discussion above. Many thanks to @asilvering!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:44, 12 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 23:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Capital

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

Does not seem to be a notable company per NCORP at all: just routine coverage and mostly primary data via Google, and no secondary sourcing apart from the one acquisition. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is trivial or inherited from the companies that the subject has acquired. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews only sends back PR items, nothing for the company otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 14 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!} 23:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Petramale

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

One appearance for the U.S. national team. Does not pass WP:GNG. Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV during a WP:BEFORE check. Let'srun (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Softball, and Illinois. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's SIGCOV already in the article: see here. There should be more that exists, considering he was inducted into the 16-Inch Softball Hall of Fame, Illinois Soccer Hall of Fame, and played for the United States national team. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In two hall of fames, played for US national team, both in pre internet era, clearly significant figure in Illinois sports, Article needs improvement not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article comprehensively fails WP:GNG; minor sports figure with no SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the 300+ word biography I linked above? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is the nature of the source. This "hall of fame" appears to be a volunteer organization that maintains a park and issues the awards; that doesn't make it a reliable source for purposes of determining notability. Ideally, a local news organization like the Chicago Tribune or Sun-Times would have covered this individual if he were notable (as they do for actually notable local Chicago sports figures). Jogurney (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @BeanieFan11 - Beanie, I found a quick mention here of him - https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/54204225/?terms=%22Petramale%22%20bobcats&match=1 KatoKungLee (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I had found a few brief mentions on Newspapers.com as well - I contacted the 16 Inch Softball Hall of Fame to see if they could find any more coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - BeanieFan11 - No joke, I was actually going to recommend trying that.KatoKungLee (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No hits in the LOC newspaper database, that goes to about 1963 [17]. Appears to be a purely local hero. Not much in the sources above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have attended a BBQ on July 4, 1961 at a friend's house [18], nothing at all found for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 02:04, 16 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!} 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royston Arts Festival

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NEVENT. UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, Visual arts, Events, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Royston,_Hertfordshire#Popular_culture where it's mentioned. However if consensus evolves that that's not a good ATD, suggest trimming the mention there. Star Mississippi 17:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Switching to delete, per the below. Didn't realize it wasn't an existing mention. Star Mississippi 18:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mention there was added by the original author of this article. Given they probably have a COI, I'd lean towards full removal. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, should have checked that history. Makes sense to remove then as I find no other indication it is large enough to merit a mention. Star Mississippi 18:21, 30 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 14:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Royston,_Hertfordshire: The coverage which can be found is local in scope and I agree that it cannot demonstrate sufficient notability for an article, but I do think that the inclusion of the information (supported by sources around Creative Royston and affiliated organisations, as well as the local council [19]) enhances the understanding of the town's cultural activities. The information would be better distinguished in an Amenities section though, rather than "Popular Culture" which tends to be a collection of minor associations. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable organization's promotional fluff. We must be cautious before recommending addition of trivial contents into a location page like town/city. Graywalls (talk) 23:47, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berle Sanford Rosenberg

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, as well as lacking significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination and multiple issues TAG on the main page. Charsaddian (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 30 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 14:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A basic internet search present his notability in Hungary, the .Hu sites, as well as in Japan and Korea. He is an adjunct professor at Ersta Sköndal University College in Stockholm^[1] according the German Wikibrief. In terms of international citations, he meets WP:GNG with the academic professorship adding WP:PROF.1IceCloudStation (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2023

References

^ "Berle Sanford Rosenberg". de.wikibrief.org. Retrieved 2023-07-11.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 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!} 23:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could find nothing of note upon a Google search on him other than passing mentions. Does not have significant coverage, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Heart ^(talk) 03:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per HeartGlow30797. I'm surprised there isn't more coverage from classical critics like in this column, but I'm not seeing it. -- Visviva (talk) 15:43, 22 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. ✗plicit 14:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughn Lowery

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

WP:BLP1E. Subject was featured in a commercial 20+ years ago and is now apparently a journalist of no particular encyclopedic notability since. Every source I can find is redolent of WP:PEACOCKery. It is offputting that his byline includes a link to this article. Julietdeltalima (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Television, Advertising, Michigan, and New York. Julietdeltalima (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not meeting ACTOR. Could perhaps create an article about the Boxer Boogie meme, it has ample coverage in decent sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 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. With no delete opinions or !votes, the consensus falls to keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Santos

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR. UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Philippines. UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He won Best Actor in the Star Awards, the Philippines' major award-giving body for television which is the equivalent of the US' Emmy Awards. That alone should merit a keep for Filipino actors. --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Leaning Keep per Tito Pao's argument. I stumbled upon some news about part of his personal life and his near-death experience. SBKSPP (talk) 01:48, 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 redirect‎ to Barney & Friends. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen White (television writer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find independent significant coverage. Imcdc Contact 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. Imcdc Contact 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and doesn't otherwise credibly establish notability. Note that there was a different person of the same name who was covered here and here. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Redirect option described below looks good to me too. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly marginally notable under his assumed name since there appears to be a published book under that name, but I couldn't find any sources which would make this a definitive keep. I don't mind if it's recreated with better sourcing I might have missed, though. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barney & Friends, since this is the sole and only thing he is seemingly known for working on. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:28, 21 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 14:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of actions by Major Singh Johal

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

Flowery language used, created for a person with no article, otherwise non-notable. No sourcing I found discussing these military operations. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page has many sources, but I suppose the main problem is that they are all in Punjabi so it would be hard to find information in English. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I mentioned it is a notable subject in Punjabi works. It is discussed in english works, but not in a whole lot of detail. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is not the language of the sources but that all the sources on which the bulk of the article is based are penny-press martyr literature. By citing their claims in wikipedia voice the article ends up portraying the activities of a member of a designated terrorist organization as "battles" that resulted in "Sikh victories". Unless scholarly sources have covered the subject, Major Singh Johal, in significant detail wikipedia should not have an article on him or his attacks. See my earlier comment on a similar genre of sources being used by the same article creator about a similar terrorist/martyr; if this a a recurrent problem, CTOP sanctions may be needed. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but I will like to point out Ajit (newspaper) which I used extensively throughout the page isn’t one of those glorifying books. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare Would using sources favourable of militants in moderate use be fine? Or using it in collaboration with reliable sources. As they are used in Surinder Singh Sodhi. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not just bias but the quality of sources. The heydays of the Khalistan movement in the 80's is a well studied topic with literally 100s (possibly 1000s) of scholarly/journalistic books and peer-reviewed articles. So if content in a related topic cannot be sourced to comparable secondary sources, wikipedia should not have an article on it. What are the three best sources for Major Singh Johal? Note that, if a source is not stocked by quite a few libraries (check worldcat.org), or indexed by jstor.org or similar repository, it is unlikely to be suitable. Abecedare (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is a redundant question, but just so I'm understanding correctly, are the aggregates of reports from newspapers sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes? For example, if a person was reported somewhat periodically in sources like the New York Times or Washington Post, but is absent or only marginally reported in academic books or journals, would that get the green light? CanadianSingh1469 claims Major Singh Johal was covered extensively by the Ajit newspaper. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"ਖਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ ਲਿਬਰੇਸ਼ਨ ਫੋਰਸ ਦੇ ਖਾੜਕੂ ਮੇਜਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੌਹਲ ਪਾਲਾ ਨੇ ਸਾਇਨਾਈਡ ਨਾਲ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਮਾਰਿਆ" [Khalistan Liberation Force militant Major Singh Johal Pala killed himself with cyanide.]. Ajit (in Punjabi). May 15, 1991. pp. 3–4. Somewhat obvious why it is reliable. From a known and trusted news network.

History of Shaheed Bhai Major Singh Johal Alias Pala, Khalistan Liberation Force. Writer - Ranjit Singh Student Damdami Taksal, Sikh Youth Federation Bhindranwala Extracts from Fatehnama publication. Publsiher Fatehnama. A well known publisher that has published works by Dr. Sukhpreet Singh Udoke. The author is also a head of a Sikh political body associated with Damdami Taksal.

ਅਮਰ ਸ਼ਹੀਦ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਜੰਟ ਸਿੰਘ ਬੁੱਧਸਿੰਘਵਾਲਾ Published by Damdami Taksal. A well known Sikh institution.

CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are close to acceptable for this topic. See my talkpage comment about newspaper reports for a topic such as this one. And I have already explained why generic martyr literature like the other two "sources" you list is not usable. Abecedare (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare Using Ajt should I add the contents of this page to the actives section of Khalistan Liberation Force? (Note I added some previously) CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CanadianSingh1469: Lets discuss that at Talk:Khalistan Liberation Force. By the way, per this source you cited, the list of "actions" are claims taken from a secret personal diary kept by Major Singh Johal, and not verified attacks or killings. Abecedare (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems contradictory to all other sources. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a secret personal diary the source isn’t fully true. If you read the full thing it doesn’t say that is the only source. It talks about getting the information from his family and that Johal has listed all of it in his own writing as well. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't ask for popular publishers, it sets it gold standard on academic publishers which implement and utilize peer review from experts and specialists in their respective fields. Fatehnama may be a popular publisher which majority of the Punjabi population may be well acquainted with, but it is not an academic publisher. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has published academic works such as those by Dr. Sukhpreet Singh Udoke and others. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Abecedare put it quite well — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreliable and unotable sources make up the bulk of the article's references. The article's creation in the first place is simply part of an unfortunate trend we're seeing on Wikipedia to valourize a particular religious group to the maximum extent possible, with facts and neutrality being relegated to the periphery. Fabricating numbers on the opposite belligerent side to present in the most negative light possible is a common occurence. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is occurring. The creator of the article has used many sources for his statistics, they do not seem to be fabricated. I do not believe that "facts and neutrality are being relegated to the periphery" Usingh0663 (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most egregious violations in this article which I did not mention, but Abecedcare did, is that it's simply a compilation of the terror attacks perpetrated by the subject; if the attacks resulted in death and destruction and the unscathed evasion of the perpetrators and their accessories, it is termed as a "Sikh victory". This is simply preposterous. Even the supposed murder of 2 Shiv Sena workers on grounds of blasphemy is termed as a Sikh victory. These incidents are terrorist attacks and illegal activities, not battles or anything akin, so at the very least the table format is inappropriate which serves only to valourise a religious group and present them as having inflicted numerous defeats on a nation they've been at odds with.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to entirely changing the formatting and language. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to hear and will definitely ameliorate some of the issues in the article. Abecedcare and DaxServer can hopefully shed more light on whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is covered in Punjabi newspapers of the time. Johal is not mentioned in English works. Some of the things he did do bare a passing mention. @Abecedare @DaxServer CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still firm on delete or has your opinion changed? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Abecedare, the sources in this article are not reliable and he strongly suggests the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. My stance as of now is contingent upon Abecedare's reply and possible recommendations. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean Ajit which is used frequently is definitely reliable. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can amend the language to present a more objective article, for example, by replacing "Sikh Victory" with "Militant Victory" among other changes Usingh0663 (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary fork more than adequately covered on Khalistan Liberation Force if any of these purported actions can be reliably sourced. Mztourist (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abecedare.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above.150.129.164.94 (talk) 14:17, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of the Spirit Ministries

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

Non-notable religious congregation, largely relying on primary sourcing. Seems to be a functioning church, nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While sources establish its existence, they do not establish its notability. Chamaemelum (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Par nomination. Platemashh (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" argument doesn't make much sense...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the delete I suppose? Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Keep it has the likelihood to improve and it's a notable organization in Nigeria, I feel it should kept. Whinehardy (talk) 8:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whinyharedy (talk • contribs)
Keep This church is discussed in academic sources on Nigerian Christianity, including Steve Brouwer, Paul Gifford, Susan D. Rose, "Exporting the American Gospel: Global Christian Fundamentalism" (Psychology Press / Routledge, 1996), p. 174–175, which discusses its October 1990 "Operation GAIN" five-day religious crusade in Sokoto, Nigeria, and the harm which the anti-Islamic rhetoric of that crusade did to Christian-Muslim relations in Nigeria. I can't explain the contradiction between that book's claim that this happened in October 1990, with the article's claim that the church was founded in 1993, but the book is from a respectable academic publisher, so I'm inclined to think it is more likely to be accurate. Anyway, I think this church is definitely notable, and the impression that it isn't is due to the WP:BIAS problem of the difficulty of finding reliable sources (especially online) on events and institutions in African countries, even when those reliable sources actually exist. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, as well as being covered in the academic literature, this church is also regularly covered in the Nigerian media. See for example https://tribuneonlineng.com/nigeria-needs-restructuring-to-avert-retrogression-bishop-wale-oke/ – and consider also that the Guardian Newspaper (by which I mean the Nigerian one not the UK one) covers their leader (Bishop) frequently enough it has a whole tag for articles featuring him – https://guardian.ng/tag/bishop-francis-wale-oke/ – I'm sure if someone looked at offline archives of Nigerian newspapers there would be heaps more coverage. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Leaning keep; I do expect there are probably good offline sources given the large number of passing mentions elsewhere. I don't see any really excellent sources directly on the subject of this organization. Most of the academic sources look like passing mentions to me. Here's the full extent of the relevant material from the book mentioned above about Operation GAIN, which consists of a few substantive sentences: Brouwer, Steve (1996). Exporting the American gospel: global Christian fundamentalism. Internet Archive. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-91711-7. In October 1990, Sword of the Spirit Ministries of Ibadan, with preachers from London's Kensington Temple and Elm Pentecostal Churches of Scotland, launched their Operation GAIN with a five-day crusade in Sokoto, the historic seat of Nigeria's caliphate. … The operation was "directed at destroying the enemy's strongholds and deceits in Sokoto"; the preaching "unveiled the enemy's oppressive weapon of deceit in the lives of the people"; and by the end "well over 4, 500 adults had been delivered from the devil's clutch". Suriname0 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SomethingForDeletion and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:30, 26 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 14:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Huwe

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

Non-notable secretary of the political party, flowery language for submitting laws to another person to get passed. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Oregon. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs include LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. The only RS source is a routine article in the local news about the subject declaring himself as a candidate. Also borders on meeting WP:G11-speedy deletion criteria given its promotional nature. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local political candidate. JTtheOG (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable candidate for political office, there's only one reference that's any good at all and that's a candidacy announcement. Reads like a CV. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 11 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Imafidon

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

Non-notable journalist. Gsearch is straight to social media; article also details his arrest/criminal charges, which seem to have more information than the rest of the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree and believe he is already notable and with the publication by Penguin of That Peckham Boy next week he will receive extensive coverage and be even more notable.

He co-founded and leads a respected and financially successful think tank.

He is a published author

He is notable, as far as the major UK news outlets are concerned for his life story and the way he overcame prejudice and a potential lengthy jail sentence.

His charitable work is substantial, including BBC Children in Need, which is very much a 'great and good' organisation.

He met the Queen - OK I'm not that convinced by that one but many people are. Jimmy Wales big fan of Royal Family.

He is already a significant black voice in society with regular interviews on the mainstream media and is likely to become an even more significant figure as his work continues.

His 'Gsearch' is just like most Think Tanks - books are so 20th century I am afraid. most of their work is for clients and does not make it into public print except in brief headlines from time to time.

YellowFratello (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no published sources about him, the article can't be kept. We need proof of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is not a published source? YellowFratello (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt - I have done more research and added references from The BBC, The Independent Newspaper and The UK Daily Mirror. I hope these will answer any questions of Notability.

YellowFratello (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources. It seems he's notable on more than one count - for the charitable work, which now has independent sources to verify, and also potentially for being the first person to sit and pass A Levels in prison (less coverage but more is possibly findable on this). I think the page should passes GNG and should be kept.Zeromonk (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose remove deletion template as concerns addresses by a group of editors working on page.YellowFratello (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NBASIC. Significant coverage can be found in The Independent, The Evening Standard, Time Out, The Mirror, & The Bookseller. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think we have agreement will remove template.YellowFratello (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources added since the nomination show that the subject meets WP:GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:22, 20 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 14:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baldev Batra

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

No proof found of an award won, seems un-remarkable otherwise, simply doing his job. Vaguely PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional article, sources are press releases or self-published article, nothing to support WP:GNG for this person. Ravensfire (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a normal, though high achieving, doctor. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:36, 13 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 14:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trak Only

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

Non-notable company, supported only by a press release sourced to an otherwise RS. Would speedy this but wanted this to be an example of how press releases in India are being used for RS, currently in discussion over at the RS noticeboard. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. Qcne (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only source I found that would come close to WP:ORGCRIT was from The Telegraphy but upon closer examination is a sponsored post.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage mainly seems to be press releases as noted above, https://sportsmintmedia.com/tamil-thalaivas-prolong-association-with-trak-only-as-kit-partner/ might be independent though. - Indefensible (talk) 06:17, 11 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. There was not sufficient support to redirect this page to the parent article. ✗plicit 14:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Miller in the 1946–47 Australian cricket season

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

Prosified statistics which violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, per precedent in previous similar AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article should never have been created, let alone promoted to FA. St Anselm (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources in the article do not specifically mention this season in Miller's career, and the article does not mention what is particularly notable about this season of play. Under WP:MERGEWHAT I do not think this information can be incorporated into Keith Miller, as the Miller article already suffers from bloating. Z1720 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above. (t · c) buidhe 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the wiki-reasons already noted. And what leads to those issues is that it is far too narrow of a topic. And creation of such creates a coatrack/green light for inclusion of far too much low level detail. Which points to a good way to deal with it if deleted. Merge the key info into the player article (when not already there) and leave out the rest. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How could the article stay for so many years and even promoted to FL?? WP:NOTSTATS. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Consensus in previous discussions is for these articles to now be deleted, as they no longer have a place in 'modern' Wikipedia. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads as an elongated summary of the 1946–47 season, which isn't appropriate for an article. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet more Keith Miller related fandom articles.... Delete for all the reasons highlighted above, not a reasonable search term, so no point redirecting. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and let it WP:SNOW. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keith Miller, not because I personally think the title is a likely search term, but because a future editor might find the contents and references useful, possibly after reducing the size of the main article. I think the article is a WP:CONTENTFORK but not a POV one. I would not have commented here except I find myself seriously out of sympathy with nearly all the above arguments. Hardly anything by way of deletion rationale has been presented above so I find hardly anything to rebut and I shall merely pass some comments. (N) Prosified statistics are not deprecated, indeed WP:INDISCRIMINATE says the problem is with "statistics that lack context or explanation": this article provides both. Also when "statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article" splitting is recommended: this article was created as a split from Keith Miller. The article is nothing like a list, not even a "prosified" one. The "precedent" in the previous AFD was a thoroughly bad precedent. (D1) The article should never have been created (or promoted): no reasons given. (D2) Sources in the article do not specifically mention this season in Miller's career: the biographies make extended mention, sources are not required to be exclusively about the topic. (D3) "As above" gives no rationale for either deletion or redirection. (D4) The rationale given is for merge, not delete. (D5) Off topic. (D6) What is more unusual these days is to have an article on a historical topic (Miller died several years before the article was created) but now we focus on current affairs. Otherwise this sort of article has become more prevalent over time, so seemingly does still have a place. For examples see these navboxes for links to "modern" articles about current tennis players' seasons:

(D7) I have sympathy with this though it isn't much of a reason for deletion. (D8) Likely search term is not the only reason to have a redirect (WP:ATD-R, WP:R#DELETE). (D9) no new rationale.

In conclusion, I hope this doesn't sound too harsh. I think what has happened is that the contributors above are, on editorial grounds, so certain we should not have this article that they didn't realise they were not providing policy or guideline based deletion rationales. Thincat (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: Re your D2 comment above: I agree that sources exclusively mentioning a topic are not necessary. However, I also struggle to determine what makes this player's individual season particularly notable that it passes WP:GNG; to me, the sources and the article do not demonstrate significant coverage of this player's individual season. As for your tennis example: I think a tennis player's season is more comparable to a football team's season, as tennis is mostly an individual sport and thus a year of play for a tennis player is their season. Cricket is a team sport, and as such the teams are more likely to have individual season articles, and less likely for individual players to also have individual season articles. Z1720 (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also strongly support a redirect as an ATD - part of a policy, not a guideline. The attribution and sourcing can be preserved that way and it's an obvious alternative. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessive detail for 1 season. Fancruft. LibStar (talk) 09:58, 14 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 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Fourth of July mass shootings, 2023

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

Seems unreasonable SYNTH, shootings in the USA that are otherwise unconnected. Simply taking place over a long weekend (and extending the criteria to days before and after) seems like a stretch. No media discuss them together as an event. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Conyo14 (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete per nom. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Artificial construct. Given the number of mass shootings in the US, you could choose any date on the calendar and there would be numerous shootings on or about that date. WWGB (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And moreso on days when people drink and socialise a lot. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I suppose any terroristic activities on a country's independence/confederation/constitution day is completely irrelevant? Jaiquiero (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could start an article called American April Fools Day mass shootings, 2023 and populate that too. In fact, I could start one for any day of the year and fill it. It does not change the fact that shootings around 4 July are no more notable than any of the other 364 days. And just because any punk can pick up a gun and start shooting does not make then a "terrorist". WWGB (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with your stance but is a mass shooter not a terrorist? I mean I guess it depends on the defintion. But yeah we should delete the article. Don'taskwhyImadethis (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A terrorist uses violence and fear to seek political or ideological aims. These gun thugs have no such aims. No, they are not terrorists. It's becoming one of the most overused words in the English language. WWGB (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't even mass shootings, you have some listed as ONE person, the highest number is five. This isn't a mass shooting event, it's a bunch of random crimes lumped together. One person getting shot isn't NEWS. Oaktree b (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't terror activities, these are regular gun crimes in the USA. Oaktree b (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This sort of topic was already discussed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Chicago memorial day weekend shootings, so there's precedent for this too. Corgi Stays (talk) 19:00, 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 delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carr Cavender

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

Non-notable actor, has only appeared in short films. Film festival award is non-notable. No sourcing found other than social media. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has starred in multiple previously released feature films. More than enough RS are referenced in article including Newspapers.com. I believe WP:PRODUCER applies here with their involvement in To Hell and Gone. –Filmforme (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Filmforme doesn't WP:PRODUCER require that someone's work be significant? To Hell and Gone was a barely notable movie, let alone significant. If I'm missing something, let me know.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. You may know more about it, but it is widely distributed by Gravitas Ventures. A google search says it’s on 10+ major streamers and physical media. That with the RS coverage for the film, it’s significant enough for me. – Filmforme (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 14 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!} 01:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Anyone? Bueller?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried hard. He's got refs for wining some routine awards (student of the week)^[20][21][22] in high school but, gosh, I just can't bring myself to say he's notable because of that. Post-school, there are interesting articles in small press sites that talk about movies he's making but they're more about them than him.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:11, 28 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 23:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolio school

AfDs for this article:

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

Last time this ended up as a no-consensus. There was talk about how this article should be merged but in the end no action was performed so I am opening up discussion again for further review. I personally feel this article doesn't have enough proper references to support WP:GNG. Feels a bit promotional too. Also keep in mind WP:NOTDICTIONARY Imcdc Contact 12:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 12:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Joyous! Noise! 15:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Once again, this is not promotional. This is a category of schools. Any amount of research - any amount - will show you that this is a legitimate category of schools in existence, like a finishing school or a trade school. Should it be pruned? Maybe - but I would love to hear an actual argument on how this warrants deleting this article instead of, say, editing out the parts you object to. Do you deny the existence of portfolio schools? LocusXovier (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - of the four sources in the article, the first is a blog and so not reliable. I do not have access to ‘’Breaking into advertising and staying there’’ but it is sourcing a quote from someone from The One Club which offers an ‘online portfolio program’ and launched the One School (a ‘portfolio school’) in 2020. The Working not Working magazine article is a promotional piece for the One Club / One School. The Adweek article is paywalled, but what is visible is written like a blog and Adweek’s mission is to promote ‘brand marketing’ content, so it is difficult to see that this could be a reliable source for a legitimate type of educational institution.

In summary I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of The One Club, and so I believe that this subject does not pass WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for PROMO. NO sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My main concern is that repeated attempts to actually find good sources have failed. I'm not sure the AdWeek "article" is particularly reliable, but even if it is, the volume of reliabe and independent coverage just doesn't cut it for WP:GNG. Genuine attempts to find good sources by multiple editors have failed, which is by itself enough for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON. Standalone notability (as required by DEL-REASON 8), probably a higher sourcing threshold DEL-REASON 7, is certainly not supported by the sources currently available. Since it has been proposed before: I'm not sure what a merge to Advertising industry would look like, and a redirect without merging seems unhelpful too. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:50, 21 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 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camara Namory

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

Very few results for either spelling of the name, could not find anything significant - fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are some non-English language sources but not enough significant secondary coverage to warrant an article. Chamaemelum (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:35, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raqib Hameed Naik

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

Moved by NPP to draft more than once, restored to mainspace by its SPA creator, this article about a Kashmiri journalist does not pass WP:GNG, sourcing is to subject's own journalism or incidental mentions. Journalists journalling, regardless of the circumstances of their work, are not inherently notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Jammu and Kashmir. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that Raqib Hameed Naik is a notable individual deserving of a Wikipedia page based on the evidence provided by several reputable sources. The deletion rationale stated that the article does not meet the WP:GNG (General Notability Guidelines), but I strongly disagree with this assessment. Allow me to present the following compelling evidence from reliable sources that demonstrate Raqib Hameed Naik's notability:
1. The Washington Post: In an article published on here, a renowned international newspaper reported in-depth on Raqib Hameed Naik's work as the founder of HindutvaWatch.org. The article highlighted the importance and impact of his organization in tracking hate crimes committed by Hindus against Muslims, Christians, and lower-ranked castes in India. It emphasized the real-time data collection and the substantial number of instances cataloged, solidifying the significance of Raqib Hameed Naik's contributions.

2. American Kahani: Another reliable publication, American Kahani, featured an in-depth profile of Raqib Hameed Naik on here. This article shed light on his journey as a Kashmiri Muslim journalist who had to flee India due to threats and harassment. It highlighted his activism, reporting on the rise of the Hindu right in America, and his work as the founder of HindutvaWatch.org. The piece underscored the challenges he faced and the importance of his mission to preserve evidence of human rights violations.

3. Newslaundry: A statement issued by the Al Jazeera Media Network, condemning the death threats and harassment faced by Raqib Hameed Naik, was reported by Newslaundry here. This further attests to the attention and controversy surrounding his work, demonstrating that he has garnered recognition and support within the journalism community.

These three sources, among others, exemplify the impact and notability of Raqib Hameed Naik's contributions as a journalist and activist. It is evident that his work has attracted significant attention both in India and internationally, emphasizing the importance of documenting his achievements on Wikipedia.

There are many more coverage he was interviewed on various crucial occasions like on The Siasat Daily here, The Intercept here and more.

As a respected platform for disseminating reliable information, Wikipedia plays a crucial role in sharing notable individuals' stories with the world. Raqib Hameed Naik's work in tracking hate crimes, his personal experiences, and the threats he has faced deserve recognition, as they highlight important issues of human rights, journalistic integrity, and freedom of expression.

I think his notability is well-supported by multiple reliable sources, meeting the requirements of WP:GNG.

Thanks and Regards. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete [23] Washington Post story about him, but that's all I could find. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG one article in Washington Post is not enough to establish notability.Godzilla99999 (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There is not a single article about this journalist. He has been in coverage at more than one event. The Washington Post did a profile article on him, and there are a number of reliable sources discussing him. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 11:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's a relatively solid WP:THREE presented above.

The Washington Post article relies a decent amount on subject interview, but there's enough reliably independent sigcov in it, a very rough estimate, after reomving attributed information and some "tangential" background would put it at 1000 words of SIGCOV.
The Newslaundry piece seems mostly independent, with a couple choice quotes from subject/related entities. Call it 200 words of SIGCOV
The American Kahani source does not seem to check the independent box it sources both the subject and the above Washington Post article too heavily.

So the strength of the first two sources along with other background from pieces like [24] seems to give us a good case for WP:BASIC

—siro χ o 08:02, 22 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!} 07:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Solidly notable per refs and analysis from TheChunky and Siroxo. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the argument that he meets WP:BASIC credible, Washington Post is about as gold standard a source as we tend to see. He's a journalist and the founder of an organisation that may be notable, at least this is encyclopaedic information. CT55555(talk) 04:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only Washington Post is WP:RS ,American Kahani is not a WP:RS source and the others are mere mentions.For a BLP one needs three solid WP:RS to meet WP:THREE and it is not case here.115.99.21.190 (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is a shortcut to User:RoySmith/Three best sources, one editor's opinions. It's not community-approved or developed policy, guideline or even essay.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:29, 31 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 14:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpana Saxena

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

Non-notable policewoman. A Deputy Commissioner is not considered notable enough by our standards. Is notable for WP:ONEVENT when she was attacked by her colleagues. Fails WP:N due to lack of any other reliable resources discussing her. Also to be noted is that the article was created by a sockpuppet. Jupitus Smart 12:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Jupitus Smart 12:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure of WP:N. Qcne (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable position held, the "event/attack" seems unimportant for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 11 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 23:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sacix

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG Last time was a no-consensus. I am nominating this article again for further discussion. The project is no longer active. References do not provide any significant independent coverage. Imcdc Contact 12:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Imcdc Contact 12:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find significant coverage of this project, fails WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found, sources in German are the only hits I get. The project does not appear in internet searches either, there appear to be streamers or social media users with this name. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 14 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chiragh Kush

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

As far as I can work out this is SYNTH/OR/hoax territory. Massively over-cited (118 citations in all, some sentences having ten or more citations), conflating all sorts of religious libels under one banner (an Iranian phrase that appears to actually mean a shameful work or deed done in the dark), this odd and sweeping bunch of seemingly unconnected assertions needs to go - perhaps one day to be replaced by something cogent and well put together, who knows? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, and Iran. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks to be a copy-paste job from these two third party wikies. 1 and 2. Qcne (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: at best, it needs a little TNT. Chamaemelum (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - page does not exist on the Farsi (Persian) Wikipedia.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft We need better sourcing about this. Seems like it could be notable, but wow TNT first. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of the page and I have to disagree that page should not be deleted.

It is not original research as the first citation mentioned Chiragh Kush as legitimate name by scholars in the source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/zeitdeutmorggese.164.1.0129

Citation 58 and 59 also connects with the libel used in Roman times with the Ottoman times as the Ottoman did use the term Chiragh Kush. So it is not a random unconnected synthesis.

Also I did not copy those info from other wikis since most of those other wikis are fandom based and the fact that are almost no info about the topic I could have copy from.

Also for why the page does not exist in Persian Wikipedia, the Ottomans, Indian Muslims and Central Asians used the Persian language as a literay language and they are the one mainly wrote the Chiragh kush, not the Iranians themselves. Yaujj13 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should have put the deletion sorting for Wiki project Turkey instead of Iran as for my reason in the last paragraph. Yaujj13 (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Yaujj makes some valid points in their response, and others should read it. However, the conflation here is way too much. Either the concept is Chiragh Kush and it refers to a type of libel in the Islamic world, or a broader concept needs to be found. Just because the Muslim-Persianate concept has a somewhat direct relationship with the Christian concept, does not require their conflation, and definitely not under the name Chriagh Kush. It is also oversourced, but that can be fixed a lot more easily. Uness232 (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify due to multiple problems such as excessive citations/sources and unclear focus. The article needs thorough editing to solve issues including the use non-RS, and possibly synthesis and original research. Aintabli (talk) 14:37, 13 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 14:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Frieda

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this last time and it ended in a no-consensus so I'm nominating the subject again for further discussion. Fails WP:NACTOR as only had a significant role in a single film. Fails WP:GNG as most of the sources fail WP:SIGCOV. The ones that don't are interviews which fail independence according to established consensus. Imcdc Contact 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being Lulu's son doesn't help, either. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two bit parts aren't enough for ACTOR, rest seems routine coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zafem

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND, no credible assertion of notability, no chart position for music (itunes is not a chart) - an article full of redlinks, puffery ("The reaction of the public to this new album was euphoric") and unsourced content. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Haiti. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Qcne (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is PROMO. Usual cohort of streaming sites and social media found, can perhaps revisit after they set the world on fire with their tour. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this announcement for an upcoming club tour by the band in America and the Caribbean, and even one gig in Africa. Coincidentally, that tour starts tomorrow; but not-so-coincidentally, it was announced two days before this WP article was created. That leads me to suspect that this article is part of a multi-media promotional scheme. Good luck to them and maybe the tour will generate some media coverage that can support an encyclopedic article. But until/unless that happens, it is too soon because they have not yet progressed beyond the usual streaming services and social media promotions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not be deleted. Yes It should be corrected. Zafem is a popular haitian band with chart entry on Billboard (https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-beat/billboard-charts-first-timers-wunderhorse-dr-teeth-and-the-electric-mayhem-1235330858/).It deserves a wikipedia article. Fanisepetiote (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True but that is just one minor accomplishment so far and the Wikipedia rules for musician notability only say that someone may be notable with such accomplishments, but not definitely. There will be no problem with a new article if they become better known in the future. Meanwhile here is a a different link to Billboard in case the one above is broken. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's a "minor" accomplishment is highly subjective and sentimental and not knowing the dimension of the group.Besides the article on Billboard , the group have many articles from very reliable and respected medias like Yahoo , Le Nouvelliste , Ayibopost, Tracetv etc.I've looked at the criteria for musicians and ensembles , they're met. Contribute to the article instead of trying to delete. Build instead of detroy. 37.10.24.7 (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out that saying it's better than a minor accomplishment is also "highly subjective and sentimental". What matters here is Wikipedia's rules on notability and their interpretation as editors search for a consensus. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If your are contesting a Billboard-charted,one the most popular haitian bands notability you have to prove point by point how to the group is not notable. For now your statement is false unless wikipedia belongs to you and you make the rules. Fanisepetiote (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here can click a few fields and see that you are the creator of Zafem's article and you have done very little on Wikipedia outside of that article and this debate. Therefore you have a certain non-neutral perspective, which is okay if you could avoid resorting to accusations. You can also take the opportunity to learn more about Wikipedia's practices. More specifically, I do not have to "prove" anything; instead I made a contribution to the community's consensus process and do not care if the consensus does not match my own opinion. Also, I did not make the rules. Several hundred Wikipedia editors made them by consensus over a couple of decades. See the musician notability rules and click the "History" tab. And to think, I actually wished Zafem luck way up above. I have nothing against them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again,you're making subjective and uninformed assumptions. I've also created the article" Petit Seminaire College Saint-Martial both the english and french version. Both articles were well received by wikipedians and well-edited over the years. This was not little . This was a huge contribution to wikipedia , creating 2 articles about one the most popular haitian school. I am not related to Zafem , I created articles about popular haitians.

Based on your logic,you should also try to delete Petit Seminaire College Saint-Martial since it seems to be not notable enough for you. Fanisepetiote (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I might offer you some advice, @Fanisepetiote, I'd walk away right now and let the temperature drop and the consensus process work itself out. TBH, I'm not sure you're doing yourself any favours by continuing to wrangle with editors at this AfD... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention honestly to get into this fruitless debate. I created my first wikipedia article in 2014 and I've read the criteria for musicians notability.Zafem checked a lot of boxes there.The band has already a french wikipedia article (already published ) which I did not create but contributed that has way more sources and edits that my english version. Zafem has enough sources to prove its nobability. Some editors needs to research before they make false assumptions. Fanisepetiote (talk) 13:45, 13 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. ^Complex/_Rational 13:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Langtry

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not a trace found in reliable sources. ~~Even the source cited (War graves commission) appears to have no record of this soldier.~~ Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United Kingdom. Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here he is on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Qcne (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlooked that one. Stricken. Kleuske (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  now that we have reliable sorces could you please remove the articles for deletion sticker thanks JohnStevens1919 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Just wondering if you have a personal connection to the Langtry family, @JohnStevens1919, as you also created J. M. Langtry. I'm not fully sure James Langtry meets the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) either :( Qcne (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. The poor man still fails WP:GNG. Kleuske (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and here https://uk.forceswarrecords.com/record/735140244/langtry-charles-soldiers-died-in-the-great-war-1914-1919 JohnStevens1919 (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable, I'm afraid. Just one of countless soldiers who served in WWI with honour but without any notability. And he received the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal at the age of 19? I don't think so. The clue is in the name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
49 he was a The Royal Hospital Chelsea Pensioner when the war broke out JohnStevens1919 (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

he was born 1870 and died 1918 at the age of 49 JohnStevens1919 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the article claims he received the medal in 1889! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject does, indeed, fail WP:GNG and we also have WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.yeoviltown.com/warmemorial/worldwar1.aspx charles langtry yeovil war memorial JohnStevens1919 (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JohnStevens1919, I ask again if you have any connection to the Langtry family? If so you really need to declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest immediately. Qcne (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that is because you are not historians of just have old fashion views about our national history ... you should speak first with the royal british legion

In 1914, Sir Fabian Ware, the commander of a mobile unit of the Red Cross on the Western Front, felt driven to find a way to ensure that the final resting places of the dead of the Great War would not be lost forever. He and his unit began recording and caring for all the graves they could find. By 1915, their work was given official recognition by the War Office and incorporated into the British Army and in 1917 the Imperial War Graves Commission was established by Royal Charter.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/partnerships/mapping-the-centenary/projects/the-commonwealth-war-graves-commission-the-first-world-war JohnStevens1919 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please elucidate, yes or no, if you have a connection to the Langtry family. Qcne (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is the establishment of the IWGC at all relevant to the notability of this one man? And many of us here are historians, including military historians. Please explain why this one soldier in particular should be notable? Or do you think all WWI veterans are notable? That would be a lot of people! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Solder doing soldierly stuff isn't notable. Nothing terribly outstanding about his record from what I'm reading. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, his medals aren't notable. Everyone that showed up and made it back home got one of these. I don't want to call them participation trophies, but everyone got one of them for serving. Earning a Victoria Cross or something similar would make him notable, this individual just went to war, managed to stay alive, got a handshake and a thank you for your service medal and went home. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim of notability. The War Medal and Victory Medal were given to everyone who joined up, and the memorial plaque to the family of everyone who died. (I pause to remember my great uncle Jack, who was killed on 12 October 1917.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 11 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 as promotional and non-notable. ^Complex/_Rational 13:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ATHLYT

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

Created by a blocked UPE. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find evidence of notability at this time.

Qcne (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Schools. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, also WP:SERIESA. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Can we G11 this? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Undo AFD comments Mercenf!** Should be noted that the nominator is being looked at as part of a paid editing ring which is extorting another page' subject at the deletion discussion for Malcolm Collins (author). The nominator has also just changed his name since being accused. several of his articles were tagged and nominated including Dubai Creek Country Club and all the tags were removed with no valid explanation. They are also attacking a clearly notable israeli company called Artlist. several of his ring's articles were tagged and nominated including Dubai Creek Country Club and all the tags were removed with no valid explanation. Paul L. CARON, Al Suhub Rest House, WAHL clippers, al Bait hotel 47.181.166.72 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  On second thought, I still think it's enough to G11 but I suppose it could be better to let things run the full 7 days. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  KEEP: Deleting an article about the only notable NIL company that works with Historically Black Colleges & Universities in the news (Google them and NIL and HBCU and multiple articles appear) seems targeted. They have been mentioned as official NIL partner of an HCU athletic conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Coast_Athletic_Conference as listed on their official page https://www.gcaconf.com/general/2022-23/releases/20221011_ATHLYT_and_Urban_Edge_Network_Team_Up_To_Offer_NIL_Opportunities_to_the_Gulf_Coast_Athletic_Conference and with Grambling State University https://www.si.com/college/hbcu/swac/grambling-confirmed-ground-breaking-nil-deal Hamilstonhusky (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sole contribution of the above user to Wikipedia is this AfD vote. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: UPE and nn per nominator; violates WP:PROMO policy which can be considered more critical than the GNG guideline anyway. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First NIL program to pay every player on a college team. Plenty of references.. If it goes bankrupt in 2 years and becomes irrelevant than maybe it gets deleted but they are doing exciting work! 135.148.233.107 (talk) 03:27, 11 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Development Bank

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

The page does not meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's policies on significant coverage, neutral point of view, and reliable sources for companies. The majority of the references primarily consist of announcements and press releases that include statements from the institution's own officials. These press releases are typically published on platforms that are predominantly owned or influenced by the Government of UAE, which, in turn, holds ownership of the Emirates Development Bank. Our focus on Wikipedia is not to create a biased or favorable portrayal of the UAE but rather to present an objective and unbiased perspective. Regrettably, achieving this goal is often challenging when relying solely on domestic media sources. However, I am open to retracting the nomination if the article undergoes improvements in accordance with the guidelines specified in The Heymann Standard. RPSkokie (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Arab Emirates. RPSkokie (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a >30 billion dirham bank and a major funder for UAE national development and private sector development initiatives - the presumption that it is not notable is frankly ridiculous. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard link cited in the nomination does not link to consensus to deprecate these media as sources, BTW. And, finally, deletion is not cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how absurd a nomination may seem to you, it is important to maintain politeness. The best way you can contribute is by either updating the page or conducting a thorough analysis of the sources, which can help generate a consensus. Also the deletion is not cleanup; I agree. Twice the page has been draftified for incubation, but each time it has been moved back to the main space without any significant modifications. This is a cause for concern. RPSkokie (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the largest bank in terms of assets in the Middle East, owner and administered by the government of UAE.(Starling2022 (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article needs plenty of work and clean-up, the bank has received plenty of coverage from both Middle Eastern sources and Western sources (see, for example, Reuters). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- clearly notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. Swag Lord, Ph.d. Here's another. Although one feels vaguely silly applying WP:NCORP to a major governmental agency, I don't think there's any real question that the requirement of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is met. -- Visviva (talk) 04:50, 16 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 see a rought consensus among editors that sources existing in the aritlcle and recently added are sufficient to establish notability that warrants an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Hollaren

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

American business executive and government official, not notable as a businessperson (failing WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON) and not elected to any office (failing WP:NPOL). Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, United States of America, and Oregon. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. He was the Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Deputy Assistant to President George W. Bush, and Chief External Affairs Officer of a multi-billion dollar company. Was Nike's senior vice president of government and public affairs. Was senior vice president of global government relations for Honeywell and director of tax and environment for Union Pacific Corp. Between these and his government positions, there are multiple secondary independent sources with non-trival coverage.
Chamaemelum (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to persons' significant contributions both in public service and the private sector. His roles as Commissioner at the Port of Portland, Assistant Secretary of Transportation, and key contributor to the creation of significant institutions like the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security (after 9/11 attacks) demonstrate his notable public service. He also serves as a trustee at Willamette University and as the chairman of the Board of Directors of the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry, with extensive media coverage of his roles in these positions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets several of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which helps ensure it. The person has significant coverage (a Commissioner at the Port of Portland, Assistant Secretary of Transportation, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs etc). The information provided in the article is derived from reliable and independent sources. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people include the clause that an individual may be notable if they've held a high-ranking position within a notable organization or corporation. O'Hollaren's roles as Vice President at Honeywell and Senior Vice President at Nike, Inc., as well as his current position as CEO at Albemarle, meet this criterion. --Loewstisch (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep !votes aside, none of which has addressed the actual sourcing, the article currently fails WP:GNG with only the Politico birthday article possibly counting. Everything else isn't secondary or independent. Article also reads more like a CV than an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 11:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep leaning towards Keep. The subject is quite notable (WP:GNG) with significant roles in both the public sector and private industry. Additional credibility comes from additional sources like books and Congress reports (which I've just added), as well as the biggest global identifier systems (e.g., VIAF ID, ISNI, FAST ID, Library of Congress authority ID where O'Hollaren is presented). To address concerns of resembling a CV, certain content has to be revised and removed. Despite SportingFlyer's critique of the sources, Politico's biography details, government records, authoritative mentions in the international press (e.g. Xinhua) and reports from the organizations he has been part of may be considered reliable sources. Bash7oven (talk) 15:48, 20 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. ^Complex/_Rational 13:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliTrack

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not able to find significant coverage in third party sources, therefore fails notability.

Qcne (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main coverage is Delano, leaning delete.

Chamaemelum (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good grief, fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Sourcing is woeful, company not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:06, 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 Draftified‎. Article creator has already draftified it, so no need to continue discussing for now, pending AFC etc. process. — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajaa Mekouar

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

WP:ROTM private equity investor. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. Qcne (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Savitha Nambrath

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

This appears to be a non-notable sound designer. The coverage is based only on mentions. It fails to meet the criteria set by WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as I cannot find significant independent coverage. Qcne (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:12, 14 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. This deletion will be memorable. ^Complex/_Rational 13:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elections and Referendums

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

So tautological it's funny. Kleuske (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Unnecessary disambiguation pages, though it isn't a real disambiguation special page? Qcne (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary.Godtres (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly the most pointless page I've ever seen. Athel cb (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. and others, clearly unnecessary and pointless. Sal2100 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above and tidy. --Bduke (talk) 07:15, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Singh Rathore

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

Created by someone with a WP:COI. The article from Indian Express is marked as "EXPRESS FEATURES SERVICE" and others are brief mentions. The award he received is reserved for students. This clearly fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as I cannot find significant independent coverage Qcne (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, sourcing is terrible and we have no RS here (and none to be found 'out there', either, although there's apparently a dentist in Noida of that name). What IS a 'sound designer' anyway? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of WP:SIGCOV. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Film Awards in India are awarded by the government of India, rather than any private organization. Furthermore, these awards are presented by the President of India. The award can be won by an experienced person or even a student, if they have excelled in their film work. Link to the government of India's website about it:

[25]https://www.dff.gov.in/NFA.aspx

Links about 55th National Film Awards, Ajit's name is mentioned in the list of winners:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/55th_National_Film_Awards

Times of India: [26]https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/movie-awards/national-awards-winners/2007/108

What is a Sound Designer?

A Sound Designer is responsible for crafting the sound elements in a film. Every scene requires meticulous sound design to enhance the viewer's experience, even capturing the subtlest of sounds, such as a pin dropping. Sound Designers are credited in every film that is produced.

Reference to Sound Design: Sound design

Reference to another Sound Designer who is an Academy Award (Oscar) winner: Resul Pookutty

Regarding the mention of a dentist in Noida who shares the same name, it is common for multiple individuals across the world to have similar names.

Hope this helps. Amitsrathore (talk) 14:06, 13 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 speedy delete‎. UPE by a sockpuppeteer. We need waste no more time here. Courcelles (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Luxuré

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

Declined at WP:AFC moved from draft by creator, not notable, fails WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable awards, minimal coverage, probably WP:TOOSOON.-KH-1 (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO, insufficiently strong sources to bear the weight of an otherwise clearly non-notable individual. SN54129 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Delete’’’ per nom. 2600:1011:B132:66F2:A54B:E832:312D:4C1C (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No chart position, no awards of note, no enduring contribution. Lack of coverage = fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not (yet) notable, insufficient coverage, perhaps WP:TOOSOON as KH-1 suggests.
Also concerning that the page creator has just been indeffed for promotion/spam, after removing the article's AfD tag with this edit-comment:
This Wikipedia article's Content, Formatting and Additional sources were approved by published ghostwriters and individuals of multiple Wikipedia writer's agencies. This article is anonymously being watched by 117 article writers.
– .Raven .talk 13:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - Note that the article's creator, Freeman020203, has also created this category which should be deleted too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 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. ^Complex/_Rational 12:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Tae-hyok

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

Article fails WP:GNG Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find a reason for notability and I cannot find a source that has a bio about him, only sources that include him as a player that was on the roster. Ultimately, fails WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search for 안태혁 also returns nothing. Article doesn't show notability and to the best of my ability, I could not find it online. :3 F4U (they /it) 04:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to its lack of substantial content and inability to demonstrate the subject's notability in terms of significant coverage, achievements, or impact on the sport --Loewstisch (talk) 08:21, 13 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. ^Complex/_Rational 12:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Yong-mu

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

Article fails WP:GNG Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find a reason for notability. Additionally, I cannot find a source that has a bio about him, only sources that include him as a player that was on the roster. Fails WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search for "안용무" also found no sources. No sign of notability in the article or elsewhere. :3 F4U (they /it) 04:31, 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 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 14:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khoziain

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

OR about a Russian dicdef which simply means "owner" or "boss" - Altenmann >talk 07:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or cross-wiki merge to Wiktionary Chamaemelum (talk) 08:50, 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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arupusu monogatari Yasei

AfDs for this article:

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

Obscure film, on which there is conflicting information in Japanese Movie and Kinenote database, no further reliable sources could be found, also notability questionable. Robert Kerber (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to~~ Setsuko Hara (she's the main actress and is on the poster and she's extremely notable, as everyone knows),if sources in Jp ~~are not~~ (edited: seem) enough to improve and Keep. For information: the JpWp has no page yet but has 2 lines for the film in a list (the page about Ōizumi eiga, the short-lived production company of the film, that was later bought and merged into Toei; it is their final production).-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 08:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC) (Note: edited July, 10 after improvements made to the page by Chamaemelum and Robert Kerber)[reply]
The fact that a film exists, or has someone notable involved, or is mentioned in a list on WP (which is self-referential) doesn't make the article per se notable.

A redirect could as well be made to well-known screenwriter Kaneto Shindo. I oppose a redirect to either one. Robert Kerber (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have we checked for sources in the Japanese language? Chamaemelum (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Movie Database and Kinenote are both Japanese language sources and the only reliable ones I found. Robert Kerber (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a decent number of additional website sources (in Japanese), albeit not great ones to your point. However, I found many mentions of this movie in print in Japanese. Search for the shorter name, and then combine this with a name out of the directors/actors/etc. to narrow it down. Doing this yields lots of information about the film, which is my reason for keep. Print images of the film also sell for small amounts on occasion, for what it's worth as a "who cares about this" indicator. Chamaemelum (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chamaemelum Although I still vote for a delete, in case I'm overruled: can you tell me under which title the film is listed in the majority of sources you found? The JMDb and the poster on the MPPAJ site give the longer title, Kinenote the shorter one. Depending on which title version is more common, the article's title and intro section should be updated. Robert Kerber (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The shorter title is what I found more information on. My keep is weak; it's more like "there is a possibility of something here". I cannot do a good job of assessing Japanese print secondary sources, and someone more well-versed in Japanese could inform us if they are in passing, notable, etc. There were also search hits for encyclopedias of Japanese film which I couldn't read at all. Chamaemelum (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an author of the article I feel I need to write something. It does not matter to delete few articles for a good reason. It matter to delete article with such very vague reasons! It may became a very poisonous precedent with unexpected consequences. Decide wisely. I think, that all 48 films by Kaneto Shindo are notable in the same way as for example all films by Ridley Scott are considered notable. I created number of articles like this including posters. Poster did not just made article much more beautiful. Posters provided much more informative and cultural insight about the film. Unfortunately Copyright laws changed RECIPROCALLY and posters had to be deleted from Wikipedia. It has taken me much time and effort to create article like this, because I am not Japanese speaker. Would you be able to write and article like this without Japanese language knowledge based on Japanese sources only? It is very unfortunate, that there are virtually no English language internet sources. So we have to stitch to Japanese sources. I do not see the point why the article should be deleted when I see, that nominator himself is creating similar articles of the same number and quality of sources. Be a bit respectful to work of other cultures and wikipedians and tolerant to articles fighting cultural WP:BIAS and keep it. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I see, that nominator himself is creating similar articles of the same number and quality of sources" – A statement which I reject firmly, considering the fact that your articles have repeatedly been nominated for deletion for lack of notability, poor referencing and other reasons. Also, the reason why I proposed this article for AfD is anything but vague. Please stick to the facts instead of spreading polemics. Robert Kerber (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think - I don't speak Japanese, but it's easy to tell the three blue-linked sources currently in the article are all database sites which don't pass GNG. One of them says through Google translate the movie has not been reviewed by anyone. I cannot access the fourth source. Granted it is an older film, but a database entry suggesting the film wasn't notable enough to be reviewed, combined with no sources which clearly pass GNG, combined with a maximum of one source that can even be assumed to pass GNG. I just voted weak keep on a different article about an older subject in a foreign language, and I don't mind draftifying this, but the other subject clearly demonstrated there were other sources out there besides databases, and this one hasn't. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with @SportingFlyer's reasoning; the sources themselves can't prove the notability of the subject. GuardianH (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a lost film, and as such, I have mixed feelings about using things like online film databases as grounds for its notability or lack thereof. There is information available, such as what the filming locations were in Gifu and who did the stunt work for Hara Setsuko, and the film has a listing in Jiji Tsushin's Eiga nenkan from 1952 (a very reliable source), but it seems like what's really needed here in order to show notability is things like box office returns and reviews from the time. Those sorts of things are all going to be in old print sources in this case. Notability is permanent and the film itself is likely to be notable, so I would suggest that recreation in the future is a realistic possibility here. Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article consists of a plot one liner and nothing else. Nothing significant in article. DareshMohan (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, I consider myself to be more an inclusionist than deletionist – I even had an argument once with a user who proposed the deletion of an article of mine on a documentary film about an important experimental music group (Throbbing Gristle) which had played several festivals and was aired on television.

What I see here is a film which is not only lost, but seemingly had no impact to speak of during its initial run (i.e. for being an object of debate for political, cultural or other reasons), did not touch a subject matter which was debated, saw no distinction by receiving awards, invitations to festivals or particularly positive or negative reviews (if at all), was not of importance for the careers of the people involved, and had no a re-run of any sort (as a re-release or part of a retrospective). As far as I can see, it has been mentioned retrospectively in one book by Jun'ichirō Tanaka (thanks to research by Chamaemelum), but without reviewing it (for obvious reasons); also, said source does not indicate any importance for Japanese cinema at the time per se, for a genre, a subject matter, or the filmographies of anyone involved in the production. All very sparse, in my opinion.Robert Kerber (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I don't see a good reason to delete this, as the movie doesn't fail notability enough to justify removing its page. It is currently way to "stubby" though, and should be expanded.

DarmaniLink (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 29 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Lancini

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

Does not meet WP:COMPOSER or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 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!} 07:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS presented to pass WP:GNG, let alone get to WP:MUSICBIO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:30, 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!} 00:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Cruz (Nip/Tuck)

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

The article has no sources, and a quick Google search gives little sources to show notability. Spinixster (chat!) 12:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 12:42, 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!} 07:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the show's page. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, so all original research? Would be better for the Fandom wikia, not Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 08:58, 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 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!} 00:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germela

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

WP:NCORP - does not meet; Could not find reliable sources Edit.pdf (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 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!} 07:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Qcne (talk) 08:57, 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 no consensus‎. Clearly not being deleted but feel arguments to keep on the award are probably going to need a guideline level discussion before they become authoritative given that we do seem to delete quite a lot of the winners. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Zarib

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

Unremarkable former child actor who's only claim seems to be winning a child actor award aged 12. No evidence of further film participation or notability from existing credit. Fails WP:NACTOR. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They do not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Qcne (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say "unremarkable", although he might not pass Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. He did win a national film award in the eighth most populous country in the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything that would suggest this person is remarkable or otherwise noteworthy, as you latterly note. I guess the outcome of this would determine if we should look at other actor articles on that list also. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the question should be asked as follows: does Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Child Artist meet WP:ANYBIO's criteria? I'm not sure. Deckkohl (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have articles about every recipient of an Academy Juvenile Award. Even those, like Ivan Jandl and Vincent Winter, who have little or no sourcing beyond an obituary saying they won it. This suggests that the community believes that award meets WP:ANYBIO. Is the Bangladeshi award different? Notability is not temporary, so if they're notable for a performance as a child actor, they needn't continue to act or continue to receive coverage. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This person has received well-known and significant award in the field of film in Bangladesh. Please see WP:ANYBIO.≈ Farhan «Talk» 05:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because I think some of these comments here are advocating Keeping this article without stating that opinion in BOLD font. The discussion seems to rest on the question, is winning Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Child Artist enough to establish GNG? Looking over the list on that page of previous winners, my guesstimate is about half of them have Wikipedia articles, likely based on future accomplishments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: My thinking is that if an award is notable, then those receiving the award are notable. Particularly in the arts where future contributions from the subject seem likely. CaseArmitage (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would suggest that every category from the most important film award in any country with a "llywood-type" film industry would go toward the criteria. I can't really see how picking and choosing which countries or which awards from the most prominent awards in a country would be NPOV on Wikipedia's part. (Are choreographers more or less notable than sound designers, is Nollywood more or less notable than Dhallywood, for example...). The only possible criteria I can imagine would be how many years the award has been given, but this one would surpass any reasonable cutoff at 40+years. —siro χ o 07:27, 22 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 Bill Goldberg. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automaniac

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

Fails WP:NTV. No SIGCOV, only a few passing mentions. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Bill Goldberg. There are mentions of the show, enough for a sentence in the host's article, but not enough for its own page. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:53, 22 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. While promotional tone could be fixed editorially, consensus is depth of sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 12:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lord

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Edward Lord

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

Unclear why this person is notable, doesn't pass the criteria at WP:BIO. No depth of coverage. Lots of minor positions such as local councillor or chair of various committees, but nothing that would automatically grant notability. cagliost (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The OBE, while not on its own sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, adds to notability, as does his entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp (except for the bit about Who's Who) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Being selected for an entry in WW is certainly an indication of notability. Not on its own, but contributory. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the criteria at WP:ANYBIO, an OBE is not particularly significant honour. UK "Who's Who" is somewhat selective, but it is not the Dictionary of National Biography. Given Lord's lack of "widely recognized contribution" or achievements, I'm just not seeing the notability. There are loads of non-notable local councillors with OBEs and entries in "Who's Who".

At present, the article is just an extended CV, just a listing of positions held with no accomplishments or analysis. I'm thinking WP:TNT and WP:JUNK. cagliost (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord is a trans activist and been involved with disputes over trans women using the "ladies pond" at the Hampstead Heath Ponds.^[27][28] He was forced to recuse himself in a hearing over a trans worker's dismissal. ^[29] Also, some articles in the Daily Mail which of course aren't encyclopaedic references. WP:DAILYMAIL: variably reliable, reliably sensational.

I still think the sources for the article are sufficient.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.:, the Guardian and Inews sources you provide just have the same brief quote from Lord in his capacity as chairman of the relevant committee. These are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions, not examples of coverage of Lord as a trans activist. Given that, I don't think the Telegraph story is sufficient on its own for notability. cagliost (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- @A. B.:, could you clarify what you mean by "Keep per Necrothesp (except for the bit about Who's Who)"? Given that Necrothesp says only mentions the OBE and the Who's Who entry, and says the OBE is "not on its own sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO", this appears to amount to a claim that the OBE is sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, which clearly it is not. cagliost (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Cagliost: I think you probably need to reread what I actually wrote! You seem to have missed the first sentence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Cagliost Necrothesp wrote "Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG.". I read each of the journalistic sources in the article and they do establish WP:GNG per Necrothesp. I did not read any of the other sources. Regards, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just a CV in textual form. There's a couple local news articles on him so notability's not at zero, but as it reads, this fails WP:PROMO and badly. SportingFlyer T·C 10:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur it's a lousy, promotional article. My understanding, though, is that if the subject is notable, we fix the article.

I say this reluctantly as I spent 100s of hours as an admin 10-15 years ago mostly fighting spam; I always gritted my teeth at keeping notable COI articles. Now that I'm back, I still do.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think the notability is enough to keep, and the promo concerns stands. SportingFlyer T·C 20:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have ample sources to meet the GNG. -- Visviva (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, don't getting why it failed WP:GNG Gerblinpete (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Most of the sources here are either not independent (e.g. organizations he works for or with) or brief mentions. Three of the sources that go beyond a mere mention are about a kerfuffle relating to the Football Association, and do not say much about him. The only other one I see that is substantially about him is brief and limited to a controversy that he is a Freemason. What is most telling, IMO, is that none of the sources provides biographical information, and anything in the article beyond the reporting on these two specific incidents is essentially sourced in non-independent sources. Lamona (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a lot of citations here, but the test for WP:GNG is significant coverage and in reliable, secondary sources and that is where we fall down here. A lot of trivial and passing mentions, but little enough in depth - although WP:ANYBIO tells us "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" but then also goes on, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" - and much of the coverage in this article is relatively trivial. We fail WP:NPOL as an unelected member of various boards and committees and Who's Who is indeed not the national biographical database. (I note source 32, Andrew Gilligan's Sunday Times piece - which would potentially have been a strong source - has been taken down - and source 24, seemingly a strong Telegraph piece, is in fact a letter to the editor) And while there was indeed a whiff of controversy over lobbying, we have WP:1E... All of which adds up to the fact that we do, indeed, have the CV of an accomplished candidate for a non-executive directorship of a nice, public company - but ultimately I don't think there is a clear-cut case for this gentleman to be considered notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/response: (1) WP:1E addresses the question of whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. It does not contemplate that we would have a notable event and a person involved in it, and not have an article on either. So if 1E applies, and presuming that we are not going to have an article on the Resignation of Edward Lord or whatever, then 1E would suggest that the article on the individual should be kept. (I would preemptively note that I'm not actually convinced that 1E does apply here, and also that WP:BLP1E does not apply here at all for the reasons explained at WP:LPI.) (2) As a technical note, I believe the above citation to ANYBIO is actually meant to go to WP:NBASIC. (Which is good, since ANYBIO wouldn't actually apply here AFAICT.) (3) Absent some indication that a piece was taken down for substantive flaws, I am not sure why that would have any repercussions for our use of it here. It makes verification harder (the Wayback Machine only has some teaser text), but the hard copy of the Times is presumably still out there somewhere. (4) As NBASIC itself implies, there is a substantial gap between "not substantial" and "trivial". The best analysis of what a "trivial" mention is can probably be found at WP:GNG, which describes non-trivial (i.e. significant) coverage as having sufficient detail that no original research is needed to extract the content. So if we were trying to piece this guy's life together from the various articles where he was quoted in passing as chair of the Inclusion Advisory Board, that would be a legitimate case of sourcing an article to trivial mentions. That doesn't seem to be what's going on here: articles like this and this, which are entirely devoted to the Wikipedia article subject, might still arguably be less than substantial, but they are certainly more than trivial. -- Visviva (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still don't think he quite meets WP:GNG or other notability criteria. Had a minor role in the Richard Scudamore business, and mentioned in other news stories, but most coverage isn't about Lord in their own right. The story about him being a freemason is perhaps the closest to coverage about him, but even that is primarily an attack on his campaigning organisation by a newspaper opposed to their campaign (and hence only incidentally about Lord), rather than detailed coverage about Lord qua important person. With a bit more press coverage you might claim it cumulatively adds up, but he's not done any particular thing to make him notable. --Colapeninsula (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Atypical ~~third~~ fourth relist due to the late swing toward deletion coupled with continued spirited counterargument from keep !voters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - close but no cigar. Mostly as per Alexandermcmnabb. This man seems to just miss all the criteria and in such a way that adding all the near misses together still doesn't quite do it. Ingratis (talk) 07:49, 16 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MICIVIH

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. At least one source looks to not be independent, which leads me to see this as not passing WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Haiti. UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of United Nations peacekeeping missions. Deserves a mention but likely not a standalone article. - Indefensible (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be broad significant coverage in academia. (not exhaustive, just a part of the first page of google scholar results)
- (not independent, per below) sigcov in a book, 9 citations
- (not independent) note on relation to truth commission, 11 citations
- (appears independent) sigcov in a conference report, 9 citations
- (appears independent) seems to be sigcov, with a citation

—siro χ o 21:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Siroxo, I think some of those sources might be WP:PRIMARY. For example the 1st link is by a Colin Granderson, but he appears to have been the director of the subject according to https://sta.uwi.edu/iir/sites/default/files/iir/images/Flyer%20Tribute%20to%20Amb%20Colin%20Granderson%2C%20Monday%20June%2027%2C%202022.pdf. - Indefensible (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Indefensible! You are correct about that, and it seems the second one is by the deputy director. However as far as I can tell, the other two are independent. I think my !vote stays the same, as we have two sources and my BEFORE was not very exhaustive. I hadn't even looked into newspapers before and already found this: [30][31]. I am confident more journals and newspapers will turn up if needed. —siro χ o 07:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I think your 4th link might be primary too since the author was a UN observer. Since the subject is a UN mission, I think sources from the UN might all be primary so we need non-UN coverage to support this. - Indefensible (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confident enough in understanding the UN to know for sure, it's such a big organization. So I suppose we might rule out an "independent expert" from the UN as well [32]. Either way, here's some somewhat arcane coverage of applying statistical models to missions, this subject being a focus [33]. And these two articles seem on the face to be independent [34][35]. —siro χ o 07:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Good discussion so far, but we need more opinions here. Anyone else want to weigh in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 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!} 06:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think we have enough sources here in the discussion to satisfy GNG requirements. Personally, I think the best way forward would be an article on the multiple UN Peacekeeping missions in Haiti, since there is significant operational overlap, and separating the missions completely seems somewhat arbitrary. See, for example, this UN report and this report by the US Institute of Peace. Even though expanding the article's scope in the future might be good, the notability of the subject is well-established for now. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Actualcpscm and sources provided by Siroxo above. The article isn't in great shape but it would be pretty extraordinary if such a high-profile mission didn't meet the GNG. Further on possible rescoping, I note that the article itself seems confused about whether this mission ended in 1994 or 2000, which does suggest some difficulty figuring out which mission is which. (The latter date seems more likely based on this 1999 Miami Herald article, which also mentions two other contemporaneous missions.) -- Visviva (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the lead re. the suspension in 1994, but a lot of this is still unclear. Hopefully someone will take the time to research a decent timeline of events and missions. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:52, 22 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 Miss Nicaragua. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nicaragua 2022

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

Not notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT due to a lack of reliable sources covering the event in-depth. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Nicaragua. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Nicaragua may be appropriate given that it was an actual instance of that —siro χ o 21:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's plenty of sources -NBC, MSN, Swiss Info, LaPrensani, Vostv, LaPrensani, Ipnicaragua, ElHeraldo, 20Minutos 100NoticiasKatoKungLee (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources exist but do not establish notability, but I've also seen so many other non-notable pageant winners so many there is some policy that pageant winners are auto-notable that I'm missing. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, this appears to be an article about the pageant, not the pageant winner. Suriname0 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chamaemelum - "sources exist but do not establish notability" - What? Why would it have these sources if it wasn't notable? These aren't database entries. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I PRODded this before, but I guess we have to do it this way. Obviously I agree with the nomination. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Bri - Have you checked through the sources in the article between nominations? KatoKungLee (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you mean the sources added in this delta there aren't any. If you mean the sources subsequent to the AfD nom, I just had a look, I'd say they boost the notability of Norma Huembes more than the pageant. Maybe they should be merged to the bio article. In summary the pageant still looks nn from here, specifically to the requirements for source depth and sustained sources. A couple of mentions of the venue and (maybe) a list of contestants doesn't cut it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:38, 17 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!} 05:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reason not to maintain as a redirect (to Miss Nicaragua), with no prejudice against future expansion. Suriname0 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, a redirect would be perfectly fine. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:30, 14 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. A consensus to Keep but Rename but no consensus on what the new page title should be. Please discuss this on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bus plunge

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

Short article on an obscure print media trope/in-joke. Cites only three sources: First one is not about the subject (just an example of a "bus plunge" headline); second is some rando's webpage so obviously not WP:RS; and third is a Slate piece, which is RS. Is only one reliable piece of coverage enough to meet WP:GNG? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slate is ok; I can't find confirmation of this trope, but the NYT seems to have a history of using certain tropes, such as cat news [36]. Could perhaps merge to a section about "Tropes in the New York Times" in the article about the newspaper? Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (added: possible rename per below conversation) This seems to be a notable phenomenon. I've added a couple sources, and a very minor expansion, and these sources could very much help expand article further as well. Specifically:
- A Jalopnik piece written by a then-yet-to-be editor-in-chief (much of G/O media inlcuding Gizmodo, A/V Club, Quartz are generally considered reliable, though some are mixed, per WP:RSP. Jalopnik is not itself listed there, but it's not a very controversial publication in its own right) The piece block quotes slate, but adds a significant amount of its own thought. Definitely helps with WP:GNG.
- I've also added a Baltimore Sun piece by a regular columnist that should also help with WP:GNG. Links to slate but is decidedly independent, providing a bit of an alternative look at the phenomenon.

—siro χ o 22:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, additional sources added though yes one WP:GNG meeting source is sufficient. Garuda3 (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Merge with Roadway departure: As it stands, this article is about a journalistic practice and not bus plunges themselves, which fall under the category of Roadway departure, a type of traffic collision.

Out of the 37 mainspace inbound links to this page, with the exception of Headline, Journalese, and Filler (media), they are all referring to actual bus plunge accidents and not the practice of reporting on them. These would probably be better served by link to an article that describes the accident type itself instead of a commentary on journalistic practices.

Alternatively, all the non-journalism commentary-related inbound links could be pointed to Roadway departure instead, but I think it makes more sense for Bus plunge to refer to an actual bus plunge than a type of news story, which could possibly be renamed to Bus plunge (journalistic practice) or something of the sort. 9³ (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC) edited 19:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a hatnote for the time being. I would be fine with a move to Bus plunge story or something like that. But I think a merge is not appropriate as the topic matter is decidedly different, as you've noted. —siro χ o 03:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that would work. Changed to rename. 9³ (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider rename. It's got press coverage spanning over 10 years, so meets notability requirements. I'm not sure if renaming to Bus plunge (journalistic practice) really meets Wikipedia naming practices (which caution against unnecessary parentheses or over-long titles) better than having a hatnote - Bus plunge story might be better. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:08, 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 redirect‎ to List of universities in Nigeria. Admittedly, I don't see a majority point of view in this discussion. A Redirect closure is a bit of a compromise that will preserve article content in case there is a day, in the future, when notability can be established. I predict a move to Draft space would mean that this article would be deleted on January 14, 2024 as the article is out of sight and out of mind. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philomath University

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

Subject does not meet the general notability guidelines for organisations. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of universities in Nigeria. The sources have problems with independence (interviews) or WP:SIGCOV, and do not appear to pass WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, doesn't pass WP:GNG.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State-accredited universities are generally kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp, I wish. But, where’s the link to the policy. Remember, every SNG is beneath GNG. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS (a policy) established over many AfDs. If you wish, then why nominate it for deletion? That makes no sense whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp, I would not want to continue lingering this thread as you firmly believe that EVERY learning institution is notable. That’s fine. There have been a lot of Nigerian accredited public schools that has been deleted over the years and I wished they were not deleted hence my “wish” for a policy that makes EVERY learning institution notable. And since this policy does not exist—yet, I will stick with the general notability guidelines. Philomath University is a new university and to me, it looks like an WP:UPE that is WP:TOOSOON. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article may be a bit early but seems to have enough notability and referencing support for encyclopedic inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Indefensible. Meegvun (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was a Professor at a Nigerian University (Bayero University) in its early days so I know something about them. This university is of course less notable than the larger state universities, but I think it is notable enough to be comparable to many other universities there that have articles and indeed better than some of them. --Bduke (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a new University established in 2021, so there isn't much to write about it yet other than it exists, hence the lack of sources. If you're new to AFD, please read WP:SIRS - especially the part with the table where it reviews four different sources to determine if they provide notability - each source needs to meet ALL four requirements. I'm concerned people are coming here thinking this is a "vote" since they aren't explaining how it meets the notability criteria I just linked. Denaar (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft. Since it's new, it's possible it will meet guidelines later even if it doesn't yet. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of universities in Nigeria. It is an accredited university, so listing there and a redirect are reasonable, but it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Per Chamaemelum, this may just be WP:TOOSOON, but a redirect (without delete) will preserve the page history which can be used as and when there is significant coverage that meets WP:SIRS. But again, to be clear, this is not the case at this time. Also to add, Indefensible's keep states in the rationale that it may be too soon, and Meegyun says per Indefensible. This accords with my view, but then the policy should dictate delete. Redirect allows the information to be preserved until it is no longer too soon. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. This is a private for-profit company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. As an aside (and not that it matters from a guidelines point of view) I'm not sure you can describe this university as "state-accredited" but closer to "licensed to operate". None of the references mentioned meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. As for the redirect to save the history of edits, I don't think there is anything that much valuable on the page yet. And draftify, too, is not known to create good new sources on its own. Deckkohl (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike some of the other schools that clearly do not meet the requirements, I think enough references do exist to support this subject. But saving a draft would be preferable to deleting or redirecting in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, "coverage" or "enough references" isn't a reason to keep any article, especially when *none* of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Which references in particular do you think are good enough to cause the article to be kept? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources like Guardian.ng and NationalAccord seem to indicate there is more here than other more obvious delete comparisons such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adarsh_Gramin_Inter_College and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stepping_Stone_Inter_College. There are some primary quotes but reporting is at least secondary in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my !vote above, carefully, I point to WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Leaving aside the whataboutery in your comment, you've listed two sources. This from The Guardian and this from NationalAccord. Is it not blindingly obvious that both of those articles are based entirely on PR from the company? How else could you explain two different journalists writing in two different publications producing exactly the same first paragraph with other paragraphs also exactly the same and a headline which has a single word difference? Or this in the Global Times? I urge you to become more familiar with our GNG/NCORP guidelines to avoid making these gaffs in future. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck keep vote per above. I still think keeping the draft might be productive though. - Indefensible (talk) 18:05, 12 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

(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]

Keep, perhaps cutting out some unverified information. It seems like embassies should be considered notable per se, but we don't have a specific agreed upon callout for them yet. The sources taken together may not meet SIGCOV. However, if the outcome is to delete, would be preferable to do a partial merge of verified information and redirect to Mexico–North Korea relations. There's some precedence for this. —siro χ o 08:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any in-depth sources that establish notability? LibStar (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, sorry. I am !voting like that because it seems that embassies should probably be considered notable per se. It's not exactly something I'm ready to WP:VP or WP:RFC yet, so I'm more floating the idea. —siro χ o 10:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no inherent notability for embassies. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to link me to any prior discussion about this? —siro χ o 18:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they have been previously deleted or redirected demonstrates no inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Korea, and Mexico. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mexico–North Korea relations. Embassies are not inherently notable (as buildings, they need to meet WP:NBUILDING), but I do think that this content could be used to expand the parent article (that on the relations between the two states). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:35, 24 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]

Delete Embassies are not inherently notable, and this is just a stub containing a red linked list of non-notable people. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mexico–North Korea relations per Red-tailed hawk. Contains cited encyclopedic content that should be preserved, but that content is about the bilateral relationship, not the building. I am sympathetic to siroxo's argument for presumed notability of embassies. But since this article as it stands is not actually about the embassy, I feel that we can perhaps leave that battle for another day. -- Visviva (talk) 17:38, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 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

^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Oregon. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Keep. Here's what Wikipedia:Notability (people) says at the very top of the page ("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."

There's full-length reliable, independent news coverage of this mayor.^{[37][38][39][40][41]}

--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 [42] 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 ([43]) 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…"
WP:ROUTINE is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage

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]

Keep per Cunard, source coverage looks to support on notability and quality. - Indefensible (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Article has improved and expanded significantly over the course of this discussion (and has changed a lot in the last 24 hours), so please do have another read: Lacey Beaty. I actually agree with the argument that "local" city coverage (i.e., Beaverton Valley Times) is not enough to justify notability for a mayor, but in this case, in addition to in-depth local coverage about her Outstanding Veteran of the Year Award from the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs), we have WP:SIGCOV at the regional level (Portland Business Journal 's "40 Under 40" 2022); at the state level (several articles in The Oregonian as highlighted above by Cunard, as well as this article by the Oregon Capital Insider which was widely syndicated to other Oregon city publications such as the Corvallis Gazette-Times); and at the national level in Politico, which named Lacey Beaty to its inaugural Fifty Mayors Club (and published her biography which we can be confident they fact-checked). Many other sources have been added to the article, which is now quite comprehensive (while trying to avoid going overboard with local detail), and was rated "B"-level by Rater. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per User A.B. who has summarized policies and provided links to 5 articles that establish notability. Naomijeans (talk) 02:30, 14 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 Page move to Luzzi as proposed in the discussion.‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luzzi (disambiguation)

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

Delete; redundant to Luzzi (surname). J947 † ^edits 04:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. J947 † ^edits 04:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. Qcne (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at this and it looks like the page is misplaced, it should just be at the base "Luzzi" title, because there's nothing to indicate that the town is the primary topic over the surname. I've moved the town article now and recommend that we close this by moving the disambiguation page to the base title. --Joy (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian Wiki has the town at the base name, which is something, given that the Italian dab page has many more Luzzis. Srnec (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec I don't see much point in trying to infer anything from that, because wiki organization is arbitrary and subject to editorial discretion. Do you think the average English reader is actually better served by being short-circuited to the stub about the small town? I don't see why this would be the case. --Joy (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because I'm not clear on what the proposed move is. Are you suggesting moving this page to Luzzi? Explain it to me like I'm a new editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Yes. As is, the page doesn't make sense. But if it's simply moved to be at Luzzi (replacing the redirect over there that isn't justified), then it does. --Joy (talk) 08:57, 17 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!} 07:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Bamrauli

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources that i could find are either primary, or school/college databases. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't found good sources, too. Deckkohl (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it please. Only passing mentions on Google books. Okoslavia (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 17:12, 14 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Gonzales (Northern Mariana Islands politician)

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

Delete. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. I also do not believe his radio career meets GNG or Artist. Mpen320 (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Oceania, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable former candidate for office. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Arcs

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

The two reviews already present are the only reliable sources I can find for this album. If there were a couple more reviews or even coverage of singles then I could probably give this a pass, but at the moment I'm not even finding that and I think what little is here is cutting it too close. Perhaps more will come later in the year, but for now I don't think this is enough. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that the article is only just barely not an orphan because of its listing at List of 2023 albums. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums does not list a minimum number of sources, but two valid reviews is sufficient for me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While there isn't a set minimum of sources, in my experience most editors seem to go by WP:THREE as the rule of thumb. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It has more reviews that other albums/songs/books I've seen in AfD. Willing to give it a pass with the two listed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So the artist doesn't need to have an article first before any of his albums or songs get one? Americanfreedom (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not required and I don't like doing biographies that much, so I didn't bother. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums says, "Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline." Generally, editors take that to mean that even if the artist is notable and just doesn't have a page of their own, you can still make the album page. I think it'd be pretty silly if that weren't the case. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, well that's good to know! Thanks! Americanfreedom (talk) 23:02, 7 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!} 05:08, 14 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. As the nominator isn't satisfied with the sources presented in this AFD, they will not be pleased with this closure but the fact also is after two relistings, they have received no support for the deletion of this article so I see no other outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Crimea

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Sources cited in the article are about the Russian occupation and annexation of part of Ukraine, none specifically about this document. —Michael Z. 14:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Michael Z. 14:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac: ~~Why are we deleting a talk page?~~ — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed; striking above comment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used Twinkle at the wrong location. Please fix or let me know if I failed to clean up any of the fallout. Thanks. —Michael Z. 15:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources cited in the article perhaps, but Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And, there has actually been a good bit of writing about the document as it pertains to Russian law (such as [44], examining the Declaration's treatment of Sevastapol), as well as the implications for international law (such as [45]). The passage of the unilateral declaration of independence itself was covered contemporaneously with its passage (e.g. [46], [47]), so I think WP:GNG is met here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk, Can you cite the first one with author-date-title or DOI? The link just returns a login page. Thanks. —Michael Z. 16:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two “covered contemporaneously” sources are literally a mention of the fact that a declaration was made, and padded out with other news. The first is merely regurgitation of the fact from an inaccessible AP article. The second is a single sentence. Not significant coverage.

The Desai and Sidhu article is potentially significant. —Michael Z. 17:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link that should work if you're logged in through WP:TWL. It's "The Case of the City of Sevastopol: Domestic and International Law" from 5 Russ. L.J. (2017). There is also comparative literature involving this UDI (such as comparing it to that of Kosovo) and other literature that analyzes the legality of the UDI itself straight away. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the TWL link.

So the text of Cwicinskaja 2017 mentions the declaration of independence (excluding the abstract and headings). More than a passing mention, but not by much. The existence of a declaration is an important point to its content, but it is by no means about the declaration.

Nikouai and Zamani 2016 mention it a few more times, but the subject is the “secession of Crimea” and one major part of it is the legality of declarations in general. Getting closer, but it is still the same subject as annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, its legal aspects, and not substantially about the document or declaration itself.

I am not yet convinced.

(The “comparing it to that of Kosovo” link also gives me a login page and no info about the source.) —Michael Z. 04:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned through Desai and Sidhu 2014, and it doesn’t seem to actually say anything about the Crimean declaration of independence. —Michael Z. 04:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Red-tailed hawk. The document appears to have legal and historical significance discussed in scholarly sources. I found the international law article particularly convincing that this meets WP:GNG.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk’s sources literally say the declaration doesn’t have legal and historical significance. More importantly for this question, they treat it as a relevant object, and not their subject.

Nikouei and Zamani 2016: “The ICJ’s advisory opinion in the case of Kosovo is progressive in that making a distinction between the legality of a Declaration of Independence and the secession ensuing it makes it easier for a lawyer to divorce an act of secession from the formalities associated with a declaration of independence. Such was the approach taken by this piece towards the legality of secession and deflation of independence in Crimea. Without this approach, the most one could achieve was to point towards the illegality of secession in Crimea without addressing such essential features as the declaration of independence and the legality of the referendum held therein. [. . .] Once again, the wholesome misinterpretation and misuse of self-determination in Crimea does dictate an urgent need for more clarification in this area. ¶ Even though the exercise of secession was underscored by sheer illegality, one must still fear the unwelcome precedent that Crimea may set in the future. For this reason alone, a continuous and substantive engagement with the issues associated with self-determination helps reduce the frightening possibilities that may arise from the political exploits made out of the selective invocation of the right to self-determination.”

Cwicinskaja 2017: “However, regardless of its special status, the city does not have the power in domestic law to declare independence, and its actions were illegal.”

Desai and Sidhu 2014 doesn’t seem to say anything about the declaration. —Michael Z. 04:32, 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! 02:44, 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!} 03:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as some of the sources are related to the topic, which appears notable. Significant is not the same as notable.

Godtres (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? —Michael Z. 22:56, 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!} 00:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Pattillo

AfDs for this article:

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

I represent the article subject, he regards himself as a non-notable, private person, and he wants the article to be deleted Fbvs1 (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual, Forbes contributor piece by Ashoka is the only ref I can find, and it's not useful. Refs used are all PR-ish or in non-RS. Could be some sort of PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. I'm not sure if the articles on two of his ventures, Gray Matters Capital and Village Capital, meet notability requirements either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of the subject's purported intentions, there is probably enough notability and coverage for encyclopedic inclusion. For examples, the Stanford Social Innovation Review covered him in this article and Philanthropy Roundtable covers the subject here. There are more sources available online including video interviews. - Indefensible (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL Let'srun (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not a politician or judge. Did you mean to reply to a different nomination? - Indefensible (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus, even disregarding the vote based on WP:POL.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the apparent request for removal could be from literally anyone (claiming to represent a person doesn't mean you actually represent 'em), the subject is not actually notable as a businessperson in part because he has kept a relatively low profile for someone who could have made a lot more noise (and therefore been easily identifiable as notable per our guidelines). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:43, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Foundry

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

Routine mentions don't pass WP:CORP. One of the three references is the company's own website. Uhooep (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy WP:RESCUE candidate, though there's really not much to rescue outside some additional sources. The developer of two major audio and video programs is definitely notable, even if they've since been sold off. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrSchimpf, did any "additional sources" turn up? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought they would, but two relists suggest they will not, so this might end up being a soft delete since nobody has brought any new ones (as a Wisconsinite I admit I've known the company, but that was years ago before they sold their products off). Nate • (chatter) 21:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep This article is about a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The two references in the article are PR ~~and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, most that mention the company are PR or mentions-in-passing.~~ I was able to locate several analyst reports on the company which meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Unfortunately, this can't be closed as Soft Deletion as it has received a vote to Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - substantial coverage in the Wisconsin State Journal including in-depth articles on company-restructuring.[48]. Newspapers.com has hundreds of hits on the term "sonic foundry". This is available to us for free via Wikipedia Library.

Also, while not technically establishing notability, Sonic Foundry is listed on the NASDAQ exchange. As a result, there are plenty of reliable SEC filings on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's EDGAR site with which to build an article. Those with financial statements are independently certified by independent accounting firms. Under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, CEOs are subject to criminal and financial penalties for misstatements.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy enough to find independent sources. Company has been around since 1991. Wisconsin State Journal, 24 Apr 2022, Sun · Page A26, June 15, 2023 MADISON, Wis.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sonic Foundry, Inc. (NASDAQ: SOFO). Lot of info out there but I don't have time to fix this but no reason that I can't be left for someone to fix. Nyth 63 03:02, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Huebner

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

Running a check on articles with old notability issues. This one seems to fail WP:NPROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only has 11 citations in GScholar, even for his field of study, I wonder if that helps notability. Rest seems non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found a couple of reviews of his book A Precarious Peace: Yoderian Explorations on Theology, Knowledge, and Identity.[49][50]. He's a theologian, so probably we're dealing with a lot of offline sources and I wouldn't put much faith in GScholar at all. – Joe (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per Joe Roe, he appears to just barely meet WP:AUTHOR. - car chasm (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:30, 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!} 03:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the reviews as above, seems fine. AUTHOR or Academic notability as has had some critical notice in the field they work in. Oaktree b (talk) 04:11, 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 see a consensus here to Keep, but clean up, this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hall (musician) compositions

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

Article cites no sources, and does not elaborate on the compositions. There is not enough sourced information on Jim Hall’s compositions, especially as compared to Thelonious Monk and Bill Evans, the only other Modern Jazz composers with a comparable article, to warrant an article Mach61 (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you're saying about lack of sourced information. But if this article is simply deleted, there will be nothing left to add the sourced information to. Maybe merge it into the Jim Hall article if it is deleted, though I can see objections to that. What is here is information that does not exist elsewhere on Wikipedia, so it adds value. Merge it, tag it in some way to invite more citations, or whatever. But I do not agree that this article should be deleted outright. --Alan W (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from the main article which is notable.. The AllMusic link in the external links verifies a number of the entries in the discogrography section, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, so an individual artist being notable does not necessarily mean their compositions deserve their own list. Note that the aforementioned Monk and Evans had collected books about their compositions, implying nobility on their own, and that no such work exists for Hall. Mach61 (talk) 01:31, 3 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!} 03:01, 7 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!} 05:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a very common way to split articles, beyond that, it certainly meets WP:NLIST. It's technically not even unsourced, it just doesn't have inline citations, and its sources are buried in the External links section. —siro χ o 11:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I helped with organization and cleanup of this article a while back when it was created. But I am getting less hopeful about any justification for keeping it in any form. I too thought, well, someone can dig into those External Links and come up with the inline citations. I just looked at those External Sources. Alas, not even this one, "Jim Hall (musician) compositions", really points to any compositions that I can see. If you click on the link, it ends up on an IMDb page with general information about Jim Hall. The other links are even more hopeless. This is very sad. Why do I say that? Because I just found out that the originator and main author of the article is deceased, as of about five and a half years ago. Now that I see the situation, I wouldn't even know where to begin rescuing this article. Maybe someone else has a better idea. --Alan W (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is sad. I'll start pointing inline references at AllMusic by album. It may not be comprehensive but we can get a start at least. —siro χ o 10:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic listings do not establish notability, which was my concern in nominating the article, not that the compositions couldn't be verified. Considering the previously mentioned lack of writing on Hall's compositions in relative to comparable Jazz artists, it's difficult to argue that they've been "as a group or set by independent reliable sources," the relevant criterion for NLIST. Mach61 (talk) 17:55, 20 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!} 06:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo. It's probably worth quoting the full relevant sentence in NLIST: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. So an expressly non-exclusive criterion. The widespread practice of creating such lists suggests that, if they indeed do not qualify under the "discussed as a group" criterion, there is at least a working editorial consensus that such lists represent another accepted reason. But I don't think we need to go that far in this case. The Jim Hall (musician) article cites sources that discuss Hall's composing style, which is necessarily a discussion of his compositions as a group or set, meeting NLIST. (Might be nice to import some of that material to this currently leadless list.) If an individual X is verifiably notable for creating works of type Y, then it would IMO be fairly exceptional if a "List of Ys by X" did not meet the discussed-as-a-group criterion of NLIST, and I don't see any reason to consider this to be such an exception. -- Visviva (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was on the fence, given the sketchiness of the few sources given, only External Links, and not much there about the compositions. But I looked back at the Jim Hall article again, and this sentence did it for me: "In 1997, Hall received the New York Jazz Critics Award for Best Jazz Composer/Arranger." To me his notability as a composer, which is now clearer to me (I always loved Hall as a guitarist but, frankly, had no idea he was so respected as a composer), justifies keeping the material in this article. Maybe merge it into the Jim Hall article, maybe, if enough can be fleshed out with more sources, keep it as is. But let's not throw this material away. Hall was a notable jazz composer. --Alan W (talk) 22:57, 22 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. I'm minded to discard the views of everyone here who personalised the discussion rather than focusing on policy and sourcing but regardless of that no one has challenged this is promotional and the consensus is clear. Whether we have another go at this is a different question but I'd advise anyone attempting that to start with the 3 best sources and write something based only on that. Then see what we have. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post Alley Pizza

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

A restaurant that only gets local coverage/reviews. Would need wider coverage as per WP:AUD to meet GNG or WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator) as the topic has been covered by multiple independent and reliable sources. This is a continuation of restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily (my user talk page is littered with notifications for similar entries which have been kept following AfD discussions). Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local and regional news sources as well as books and other industry outlets, providing in-depth coverage of the business. I've asked the nominator many times to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. This entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the WP:ADHOM comments, if this was a straightforward keep with reliable sources, you would have 100% keep votes...which is not the case. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every one of the many sources in the article is either a local review or mentions the subject as a passing example. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded significantly, if you're willing to take another look. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not getting any notability 'vibe' here. Sparse history. Nothing about the decor or building or culture. All I'm seeing is elements of a menu, names of owners and local reviews of the type, "here's a great pizza". Looked at a few of these bars/eateries/restaurants nominated for deletion and normally find something to latch on to and see why a keep opinion is warranted. Not going to wade through all the sources. I'm evaluating the notability of the pizzeria from what's written in the article. Many bland, shallow, rote "reviews" do not make this place notable and it seems that this article has little else but such reviews to shore it up — witness the length of the Reception section compared with the rest of the article. Fails all notability criteria including GNG. Firstly, there's no credible claim as to why this place is notable. The only indication is that it "offers granulated garlic to shake on your slice". Secondly, the reviews appear not to fulfill the requirement of WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS and hence do not amount to significant, indepth coverage. If someone kindly points out the reviews with most depth, I'll take a second look. The onus on providing the evidence for notability rests with those seeking to keep the article. Rupples (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article with more operational history and demonstrated reach outside the Seattle area via Timothy Egan of The New York Times. Will continue to expand as time allows. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article passes the notability guidelines per WP:ORGIND. Sahaib (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't think the current references pass the WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS requirement above, most are just reviews. However, there are a lot of references on there, leading me to believe that cleanup could be possible. However, I am very much on the fence here, the references for the most part in the article now are not enough to provide notability. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:21, 5 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!} 03:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An independent pizza joint is somehow notable? Nice that Seattle has such as vibrant media scene, but hyper-local media 'Five places to snack' pieces do not get us past WP:GNG, folks... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an independent pizzeria can be notable. To pass GNG, a topic just needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, like Post Alley! Not all of the sources here are local. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, User:Another Believer has added several new sources to the article. Some are WP:LOCAL, such as each Seattle Times article, but there are some sources from outside of Seattle (two from Portland, one from the New York Times), and one from a not-sure-if-reputable pizza magazine (PMQ Pizza Magazine). Given the sources themselves, I am not sure if they meet WP:GNG given the content of the source articles. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one of the supposed fast-food joints as being notable. Coverage is just woeful again. I don't understand why the incessant need to put every eatery in for that city. I often wonder if its money or some kind of coi. Anyway, I suspect that in the months leading up to Christmas, more of them will be reaching Afd. scope_creep^Talk 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the vague COI accusations and threats to continue hounding me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a pattern of behavior, they made a similar comment to User:A. B. on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Accel-KKR and received a warning against "casting aspersions" on their talk page. - Indefensible (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked this editor to leave me alone many times. The community seemingly doesn't really seem interested in punishing them for their problematic behaviors. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm holding off on !voting until I look deeper into the sourcing, but I have to say this article is extremely promotional. (No offense to the creator who has obviously worked hard on it.) I'm sure the pizza is great and the owners are good people, who like ~~tens~~ hundreds of thousands of small business owners do nice things for their community and donate to charitable causes. However I really wonder if it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to have actual menu items and ordering options in an article like The menu has also included breakfast sandwiches made with English muffins; varieties include: B.E.C.; sausage; vegetarian; and one with bacon, cashew butter, roasted delicata squash, and honey. and Other ingredients for Italian sandwiches have included sesame hoagie rolls, finocchiona salami, spicy coppa, ham, provolone, red onion, and coleslaw. "Hoagie jazz”, an anchovy spread with calabrian chiles and garlic, has been served on the side. Dipping sauces include a homemade ranch and calabrian chili buffalo sauce. If it is kept I suggest removing all the advertorial content and it pruning it back to a short piece. Netherzone (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to discuss specific content on the article's talk page. I will say, though, that I've included similar menu overviews in the many (50+) restaurant entries I've promoted to Good article status. We can discuss any text you might find promotional but basic menu summaries are pretty standard for restaurant articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment on the article talk page. Netherzone (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look and I'd be happy to address your concerns but not until this discussion is closed (and assuming the article is kept). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:

@Another Believer, I'm unable to !vote k**p at this time because there is so much superfluous content and verbiage and an overabundance of hyper-local sourcing that it is hard to see the wood for the trees. I can't tell what is really there! If it were stripped back to a short stub article with about 3-to-5 of the very best sources that would help. I'm willing to devote the time and effort into doing so before this AfD closes but can't promise that it would result in a k**p. And I would not want my efforts to be perceived as destructive, deletionist or disruptive to the AfD or otherwise uncollegial. So at this time, I'm leaning towards TNT.

~~@Elemimele, I think you hit the nail on the head, not just in terms of this article but a larger issue regarding the lack of guidance/policy on restaurant articles.~~ Something that keeps coming up for me in relation to this is: Do we want articles on restaurants to be proper encyclopedia articles, or do we want them to be a compendium of restaurant reviews proving how fabulous the eatery is? My way of thinking is aligned with the former. Netherzone (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone I understand you have issues with specific text, but this is a discussion about secondary coverage. If you prefer, you can totally ignore the text of this Wikipedia entry and focus solely on the citations to determine whether or not you feel there's enough coverage to justify an entry on Wikipedia. I'm all for article improvements by you and other editors, especially this late in the stage of AfD. By all means, please make the entry better, but know unless you vote keep your time may be wasted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer, what are the 3 to 5 best sources?

Could you please list them here? Netherzone (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TNT because the article is so, so overpromotional that even if it is notable, you'd have to start from scratch in writing it. But, Comment, we really need a proper consensus not just on this restaurant but on restaurants in general, about what makes them notable. The normal requirement of multiple independent sources breaks down totally with restaurants because writing reviews about food outlets is a major part of what every newspaper does. Every restaurant in the universe has newspaper writeups. Even national newspapers do it, and not necessarily of nationally relevant restaurants - they run out of significant restaurants to write about, and write about anywhere their journalist could find. It's almost impossible to be a restaurant without sources. Strewth, if you stand outside a railway station selling cookies for half an hour, someone will write a review about you. If we carry on with no guidelines, we're going to get more-or-less random keeps and deletes according to who happens to turn up at an AfD, and whether they reckon a heap of local newspaper raves and a celebrity-sighting is enough. What is it that makes a restaurant stand out from the crowd? I don't think granulated garlic (which this particular restaurant provides, uniquely in Seattle) is sufficient. Elemimele (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele As someone who's on the receiving end of a constant stream of deletion notifications about restaurants, I could not agree more about coming up with standards for restaurant entries. However, I completely disagree about all restaurants getting news coverage. The vast majority of restaurants do not get much coverage. But, I'll take back my comment if you can demonstrate the ease of getting someone to review your 1/2 hour bake sale. :P ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although many of the sources would only qualify as passing mentions (that do serve verifiability), the review by the SeattleMet is significant coverage meeting WP:SIRS. Multiple The Seattle Times sources also qualify as statewide and Pacific Northwest regional circulation, meeting the WP:AUD requirement, at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you've highlighted contributes as one source towards satisfying WP:SIRS. SIRS requires multiple such sources to establish notability and this is the only one that does. Hence, the article does not meet SIRS. Rupples (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this also counts and would allow further article development. This entry could benefit from a bit more detail about how the business has evolved based on ownership -- the pizzeria was established in 1997, yet Portland Monthly called the business a "star newcomer" in 2023 and one of the owners was recently called a "rising star". Combined with all of the talk page comments, it seems there's at least some interest in getting this entry to a more polished state. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It fails WP:ORGIND as much of the content is quotes from the owner. There's not sufficient depth in what remains.Rupples (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Refined "source" states on their "About" page: "We would love to feature your business, interests, favorite restaurants, etc. on our Seattle Refined platforms. If you'd like to advertise or partner with us, please reach out to our sales team here. If you're interested in pitching us a story about something cool in the Pacific Northwest, please contact our editorial team at hello@seattlerefined.com." - This is the very definition of advertorial native advertising. It is not SIGCOV. It's paid "product" placement. Netherzone (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying but I'd be comfortable using this source for basic operational history details. You'll forgive me for moving on to other tasks. This never ending train of restaurant deletion nominations (I see LibStar just tagged yet another...) is really killing the enjoyment of contributing to Wikipedia. Constant pings, notifications, tags, one after the next, seemingly indiscriminately because most of the nominations have survived AfD. If editors decide to keep this entry, I'm happy to collaborate on the article's talk page, but this will be my last comment in this AfD discussion. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is a relative concept. For example, many of the cited sources meet the WP:100W bar; this one, for example, tallies at 170 words; this one and this on each at 105 words. Do you have other criteria rather than word count to establish significant coverage? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I'm using WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS as the guideline that establishes significant coverage for any one source. Rupples (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because otherwise this looks like another restaurant AFD closing as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Can anything be done to slow down the restaurant nominations? I am clearly being targeted: Rubinstein Bagels, Askatu Bakery, Volunteer Park Cafe & Pantry, Lockspot Cafe, etc. This is not sustainable and there has to be a better way to go about discussing notability of restaurants than indiscriminately nominating at AfD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, in my 18 months closing discussions at AFD, it's not unheard of for one editor to mass-nominate the work of another editor but it's usually done with new, inexperienced editors. And, with your articles, this has been going on for months. I doubt a word on a User talk page will change another editor's mind so I think your only alternative is to go to ANI. But I think this issue has already been brought to that noticeboard without a satisfying result or else it still wouldn't be happening. I'm sorry I don't have a quick, painless solution. There are a few admins who would boldly take action in a situation like this without community consensus but that's not my approach to this job. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A real case of WP:OWN. It's not targeting, I also have recently nominated Australian restaurants too. It's WP:ADHOM as well. How is this not sustainable? Any article created by anyone at any time and in any order can be nominated for deletion. If this had what you consider 100% notability it would have sailed through as a WP:SNOW keep. If you don't like articles being nominated for deletion, maybe you should create your own website of every restaurant/cafe that existed in the USA. There are options outside Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly support the idea of holding off on further restaurant nominations and instead sorting out an RFC on what makes restaurants notable. We need to have some guidelines. There is no question that some restaurants are notable, and most are not, but if we're forced by multiple nominations in a short time-frame to make a lot of decisions with no consistent measuring-stick to use, we're going to end up with rubbish, inconsistent decisions. Elemimele (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already have guidelines - WP:NCORP and WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS (and WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and WP:ROUTINE for coverage). We don't need new guidelines just because there's several non-notable restaurants that have had articles created about them using "top 7 pizza restaurants in neighbourhood" articles. SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele, many proposals for specific notability guidelines fail to materialise. Asking to hold off nominating restaurants for a while is just a tactic to keep them without challenge. At the very basic level, we have GNG and the guidelines SportingFlyer has named. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly targeting me and unwilling to voluntarily back off even after I've asked you to leave me alone many times. Please stop or I will be seeking an interaction ban. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar. I'm pleased to see you've placed notability tags on two of the articles User:Another Believer highlighted above rather than going straight to AfD. I don't believe you are targetting a single editor, but are acting in good faith and basing nominations on proper grounds. However, if as an AfD nominator, you are aware, or should be aware, that the articles are written by/substantially contributed to by a single editor then it could be perceived as targetting if many such articles are put up for AfD over a short period of time. Rupples (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How am I targeting Another Believer if I've also recently nominated Australian restaurant articles with similar reasoning? Another Believer you are definitely displaying WP:OWN of articles you've created. Your comments do not deter me from nominating any article of any topic or created by any editor. LibStar (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone and stop your WP:ADHOM. Stop acting if you own these articles. LibStar (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for purpose of WP:TNT, this could potentially work as an article but as it stands right now, this article is a disaster. Tear it down and start over. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! If "this could potentially work as an article", then you should be voting keep. This is a discussion about notability, not the current state of the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point of TNT IS "could potentially work but is in such a dire state that the best solution is to wipe it and start over" TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting delete when "this could potentially work as an article" seems ridiculous and unfair to me. This article is not "hopelessly irreparable". Either this is an entry about a notable topic which could easily be trimmed and/or improved appropriately, or the topic is not notable. @TheInsatiableOne: Please consider changing your vote to keep if you believe an article could exist for this topic. Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My vote remains unchanged. Delete for the purpose of TNT. " For pages that are beyond fixing, it may be better to start from scratch." TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer, but had to ask. I must say, though, the page is definitely not beyond repair. Editors could easily and quickly trim appropriately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP's WP:AUD prong. It's just a local restaurant that hasn't received any specific coverage outside of generic local media restaurant reviews. If we have an article on this, every restaurant in every city with a food columnist would be notable, and that's not how we operate. SportingFlyer T·C 11:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder to the closer that NCORP is more restrictive than GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article creator as meeting GNG. Okoslavia (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well sourced and improved page, meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it's acceptable under Wikipedia policy for notability of restaurant articles to be established from local media dining out recommendations in "Best of listicles" and brief meal reviews, I ~~take it~~ can only conclude that WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS (which I've used as the guideline to assess sources for meeting the GNG here) might as well be redundant. Rupples (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC) edited to clarify Rupples (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC) and again.Rupples (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And for me, the salient piece of that guidance (which is by no means redundant, one assumes you are applying a degree of giddy levity to this comment) is "Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications (see also #Audience)."... And the excellent source assessment below brings that very weakness to light. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral for now~~. I created a source analysis table for this article. I am not well-versed with such local restaurants and how they relate to WP:NCORP ~~hence the neutral !vote~~. So my assessment here will be mostly based on the standards set under WP:GNG and the general guidelines of WP:NCORP. Also, please feel free to update the "?" to either good or bad. Also, if I'm being harsh on the restaurant reviews, let me know. Conyo14 (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: I'd mark The Infatuation, The Stranger (an alternative weekly with a three decade run), and Seattle Refined as reliable, unless someone can provide evidence otherwise. Some of these are perhaps not ideal sources, but they are being used for commentary and operational history details, not for verifying contentious/controversial claims. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated 7/18/2023 10:12AM PT

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/2021/10/how-post-alley-came-to-make-some-of-the-best-pizza-in-seattle				✔ Yes
https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/reviews/post-alley-pizza		Official restaurant review site, I'm not as familiar with review sites	WP:ROUTINE	✘ No
https://www.seattleweekly.com/food/restaurants-m-s/			Brief mention among several restaurants	✘ No
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/travel/whatsdoing/wd980510.html			Brief mention	✘ No
https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/seattle-s-best-pizza-from-thick-crust-to-thin			WP:ROUTINE mention	✘ No
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/as-seattle-restaurants-reopen-from-pandemic-mode-we-look-back-at-some-of-the-best-neighborhood-eats-you-should-revisit/			Brief mention	✘ No
https://seattle.eater.com/maps/best-breakfast-sandwiches-in-seattle	Another restaurant reviewer	The publisher is Vox which is reliable, just unsure of the WP:LOCAL here	Brief mention	✘ No
https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/best-sandwiches-seattle-summer			WP:ROUTINE mention	✘ No
https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/best-lunch-downtown-seattle			WP:ROUTINE mention	✘ No
https://www.pmq.com/seattle-minimum-wage-law-challenges-small-restaurants-pizzerias/	Quote from owner is the only mention			✘ No
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/will-halloween-in-seattle-be-canceled-by-covid-19-not-exactly-but-heres-how-the-holiday-will-be-different/			Refers to owner and has nothing to do with Post Alley Pizza	✘ No
https://www.kuow.org/stories/as-the-pandemic-drags-on-restaurants-open-despite-uncertain-times			Refers to owner and has nothing to do with Post Alley Pizza	✘ No
https://seattlerefined.com/eat-drink/post-alley-pizza-claims-to-have-probably-the-best-slices-in-town	Site is an advertisement-zone (businesses ask the site to be featured)			✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/dining/2020/08/portland-restaurants-serve-fried-chicken-specials-in-memory-of-chef-cameron-addy.html			Brief mention	✘ No
https://seattle.eater.com/2021/6/22/22545827/bens-bread-plans-phinney-ridge-bakery-fall-2021		Local Vox Media source	Brief mention	✘ No
https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/2021/07/bens-bread-opening-phinney-ridge-seattle			Brief mention	✘ No
https://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/comfort-food-favorite-french-bread-pizza-is-back-and-the-one-you-make-can-be-the-best-ever/			Brief mention, but might work better for the statement	? Unknown
https://www.thestranger.com/food-and-drink/2023/03/29/78922914/food-fighters			Owner's statements not regarding Post Pizza Alley	✘ No
https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/2021/04/saint-bread-bakery-opens-on-portage-bay-seattle			Owner's statements not regarding Post Pizza Alley	✘ No
https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/best-bites/			WP:ROUTINE mention	✘ No
https://www.seattleweekly.com/food/10-seattle-bites-under-10/			Feels like an advertisement	✘ No
https://www.thestranger.com/food-and-drink/2018/01/26/25754930/pizza-pie-face-off-searching-for-the-best-slice-in-seattle			Restaurant reviews	✘ No
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/4-great-spots-to-grab-a-scrumptious-breakfast-sandwich-in-the-seattle-area/			In my opinion, it is WP:ROUTINE but uncertain	? Unknown
https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/seattle-ten-dollar-meals-takeout			WP:ADVERTISEMENT	✘ No
https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/best-pizza-in-seattle			Restaurant reviews	✘ No
https://seattle.eater.com/maps/best-pizza-places-seattle-restaurants			Restaurant reviews	✘ No
https://seattle.eater.com/maps/pike-place-market-where-to-eat-seattle			Restaurant reviews	✘ No
https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/the-best-breakfast-sandwiches-in-seattle			Advertisements galore	✘ No
https://www.pdxmonthly.com/travel-and-outdoors/last-minute-spring-break-destinations			Brief mention	✘ 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}}.

Delete - based on the excellent source analysis table of Conyo14. It's a LOT of work to put that together so thank you, Conyo. I had asked above for 3-to-5 of the best sources, but I guess that got buried in the discussion. The source analysis clearly shows that this establishment is not Wiki-notable per WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NCORP at this time. I also wanted to let Another Believer know that their work creating 50+ restaurant Good articles is appreciated; you have done alot of excellent work for a long time bringing attention to many other restaurants that are Wiki-notable to our readers and the encyclopedia is better because of it. Any way you slice it, unfortunately this one doesn't make the cut. Another Believer, please see my comment above on why I don't consider Seattle Refined as a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I, too, appreciate the work that's been put into this table, but I do not agree with the assessment in its entirety. Also, several sources seem to be missing from the table and I'm not convinced the sources currently used in the article represent all available coverage. I've forgotten where I left off in my source search because I'm having to defend quite a few entries at the moment, but that's no one's problem but mine. I'll be requesting a restoration in the draft space if this article is deleted, so I can revisit expansion at a later date if needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bother putting in newspaper clippings. That is very difficult to verify. Conyo14 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, we're just going to pretend some sources don't exist and present this as a complete assessment of all available coverage? Here's where I exit the discussion (again). This whole restaurant AfD fiasco has just become a predictable "game" of the same editors voting the same way over and over again in circles, perpetuated by a handful of editors who seem to enjoy spending a few seconds initiating drive-by deletion discussions. The hounding has felt relentless for months. Sure, a handful of entries have been "successfully" deleted but the vast majority have been kept. Yet, even after demonstrating many successful rescues, too often the "reward" for saving an entry at AfD is ... another AfD nomination by one of the same nominators. Not exactly my idea of a good time. I'll try to resume work here at a later date (in draft or main space), but I have other fish to fry right now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop taking this to heart man, everyone creates articles that make it to AfD. The source analysis table analyzes sources that are verifiable. Besides, I still enjoyed creating it :) Conyo14 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the source table to mark Seattle Refined as not independent and reliable. The Stranger is indeed reliable, but I'm still uncertain about The Infatuation Conyo14 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would take a look at whether https://seattle.eater.com/2021/6/22/22545827/bens-bread-plans-phinney-ridge-bakery-fall-2021 amounts to significant coverage as the article is about the "collaborating" partner Ben's Bread. There's only a one sentence mention of Post Alley - it tells us there is to be a collaboration but that's all. No further analysis. I did try and put in a 'dissenting' opinion but it keeps overwriting what's already there, so gave up. No obligation to change anything, just wanted to put forward my view. Thanks. Rupples (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think because the statement it's paired with is simply that two companies did some kind of collaboration. It only requires the brief mention, not something that's terribly in-depth. I didn't expect it to be changed to good though. Conyo14 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It changed after you put the table up. Flicked over automatically to "good" when the reliable 'box' was ticked. I've changed the wording. Also changed the first source to sig=yes as I'd previously assessed it so. Trust you're OK with this? Rupples (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah go for it! Conyo14 (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, the first Seattle Metropolitan article is currently marked as not independent... because the author offers personal opinions? Journalists do this all the time, especially w/r/t restaurants, but that doesn't mean the source is problematic. Even Rupples said, "Surprised you hadn't made more use of it. That source counts towards notability IMO."

I don't understand why a few editors are trying so hard to delete this entry and others I've worked on. Multiple editors have shown an interest in content improvement on the talk page, and even one delete voter above said "this could potentially work as an article".---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's.not.personal. Please don't take it as such - certainly not from my POV and others I know from here who have voted at other AfDs. It's a number of people trying to apply (often to understand/finesse) guidance resulting from consensus, arrived at over years and a million wrangles. If you let it become personal, it'll just bend you out of shape and ruin your day. /end holier than thou/ Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking anything personal here (well, except for the hounding by a couple editors, which I'm actively addressing by building cases for ANI / interaction bans). I'm trying to point out inconsistencies and seek clarification. Seems there's a fairly even split of keep vs delete votes (more deletes, but a couple I take less seriously because of editor behavior issues and voting patterns which may or may not be apparent to other AfD participants and closing admins). I certainly don't base my self esteem on restaurant Wikipedia entries, but I will say these restaurant AfD deletions and discussions feel more like attempts to tear down, rather than constructive spaces for building and collaborating. The toxicity is maddening, and yet we just keep circling the drain instead of seeking a positive path forward. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your assertion the AfD nominations are an attempt to "tear down" anything or to "gut coverage of the restaurant industry" and I don't see bad faith nominations/hounding. The AfD merely questions and seeks opinion as to whether this article meets accepted notability guidelines. After evaluating the article and sources, I'm convinced this does not and hence my view is it should be deleted. That plainly and simply is it. By the way, "voting patterns" can operate just as much for keep as delete. Also, while !votes are an indicator of opinion, it's the strength of each side's argument in close keep/delete !voting that should determine an AfD's outcome. Rupples (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the process. As someone who's been on the receiving end of many unnecessary AfD nominations for many months now, I can assure you, there is hounding involved whether or not that's apparent to you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If hounding is involved there would be cause to override other considerations and !vote keep on principle. No way dismissing your concerns because you obviously feel this is the case. Not in a position to judge - would need to weigh-up other editors' opinions and review how previous claims of hounding were determined to see how the harassment policy is applied in practice. Rupples (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I might weigh in here, Another Believer has shown a tendency towards OWN, taking delete votes as personal attacks rather than impartial judgements. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no, I very much welcome collaboration. I don't take delete votes personally, I take people following me around and nominating my work for deletion unnecessarily personally. Big difference. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be pointed at you in particular, but rather restaurant articles which can be a thorny issue in AfD. This is more likely an unfortunate coincidence than any sort of malice. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine if that's your assessment. I'll continue to share my own experiences and observations, since I've been on the receiving end of the hounding, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you welcome collaboration and you don't welcome reviews or critical critiques of your work. You seem to be happily building a directory of eating establishment which against all criteria for an encyclopeadia and as more times passes I'm more and more sure that your that have some kind of coi. I have zero faith that your trying to do the best for Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I thought. Last year when we did the doughnut stand Afd, I did an analysis of your articles and noticed that you have written an article on almost every eatery in Portand, Oregon, including the dead companies. Is everyone one of those, hundreds of articles, notable? scope_creep^Talk 16:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps, can I please, please counsel a 'time out' here? 24 hours' break? At least a focus on the current AfD? The role of peace maker sits ill with me, so apologies if I'm doing this badly, but WP:ANI is an unkind place and I'd hate for this to end there. kthanksbi. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second above plea. Restrict comments to this article please. Rupples (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apologies in advance for being blunt, but this is the kind of article that risks making Wikipedia into a laughing stock. (Actually, the photograph with its caption "A slice of pizza, 2022" did indeed make me laugh out loud - thank you whoever put it there for cheering up my day, though I suspect that wasn't the intention.) It is about what is probably a very nice pizza restaurant, but there's nothing interesting or special about it - it is like any number of other pizza restaurants in any number of other towns; there is nothing notable about its location, its history, its founder, its menu - nothing at all - so the article consists entirely of run of the mill stuff, which is dwelled upon in painful detail - for example: Post Alley Pizza is a pizzeria in the back of a parking garage at the intersection of Post Avenue and Seneca Street in the Central Waterfront district, approximately three blocks south from the Pike Place Market in downtown Seattle. The interior features Phish posters. I think the only thing it doesn't tell me is the colour of the walls in the rest rooms. And then there is the "Reception" section - around half of the content, and nothing but gushing praise. Wikipedia is not a directory; there is no requirement - indeed, there is no wish - for an article on every venue to be included. Please, consign this to the bin. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've not really offered any sort of source assessment here, but I'm happy to address specific content concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rupples and Dorsetonian, and fails WP:GNG via the source analysis, fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS. So, we need another two independent, reliable sources with significant coverage that will satisfy the article. I would change my vote if there is a secondary reliable source that states why this pizza place exists. I visited Seattle multiple times and heard no notability about this random local restaurant. Conyo14 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conyo14, I find 2 sources that are listed as WP:ROUTINE on the source analysis chart that I would change to a check mark as significant coverage:
- Seattle’s Best Pizza by Neighborhood: A decades-old slice shop tucked behind a parking garage recently acquired serious culinary bona fides—and new owners with connections to London Plane. Post Alley didn’t get fancier, exactly, but now local grains power a crust that could hold its own in the sort of restaurant with wine lists and a bread program...
- 4 great spots to grab a scrumptious breakfast sandwich in the Seattle area: Ruel and Andrew Gregory started turning pizza dough into sesame-seed-topped English muffins in late summer, selling them only Saturday mornings beginning at 10 a.m. The menu specifics change weekly, but there's always bacon and sausage plus a veg option or one of the muffins slathered simply with butter and cinnamon sugar... This source is unique in that it describes breakfast sandwiches, made with the restaurant's pizza dough.
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First Source: is WP:ROUTINE in context of the article. It lists off several pizza places per neighborhoods and is not WP:SIGCOV.

Second Source: The one you provided isn't the same as the source analysis nor the wiki article. Yours' I can't access. The one I hope you're referring to 4 great spots to grab a scrumptious breakfast sandwich in the Seattle area is a WP:ROUTINE mention in the source. Beyond that, does it really state to the validity of an article?
Conyo14 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First source: No, WP:ROUTINE refers to routine announcements and events, which is not the nature of the coverage in this source.

Second source: I provided a link to the The Seattle Times archive, which is available with a $1 temporary subscription, for the url I included above. Again, not an announcement or event that qualifies as WP:ROUTINE. You asked, "does it really state to the validity of an article?" Notability for organizations only relies on whether there are enough articles to meet the WP:SIRS requirement.

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you advertising a subscription service when it's unnecessary? Almost every newspaper site has a way around that (disable JavaScript). Regardless though, even brief mentions do not count towards the sustainability, validity, and notability of an article. Gotta have WP:SIGCOV. Conyo14 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Good one. I'm afraid my coding skills are limited to FORTRAN , MAP and COBOL, which I learned for a summer internship in the mid-1960's. Rather than learn another programming language, I'd rather use my remaining brain cells to make apple crisp, so a $1 subscription now and then seems a reasonable way to achieve that goal. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another trick is to clear the cookies for that website in your browser preferences. ;-) Netherzone (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, you can do better than this :) The first source you highlight, The Seattle Met can't be used twice to establish notability. If you click thru the link in the article, "recently acquired serious culinary bona fides", lo and behold one arrives at the first source in the source analysis table, already acknowledged as meeting GNG. The second amounts to a couple of sentences basically telling us about an addition to the menu followed by a recommendation to go there for a sausage sandwich and coffee. Granted, it supports content but does nothing to establish notability. Rupples (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can only agree to disagree. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, @Grand'mere Eugene, these are not significant coverage. Netherzone (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've resumed article improvements after avoiding the entry for two weeks. I've done some content restructuring, added more sources, included mention of another former owner, noted the dough recipe's use at a new restaurant, among other improvements. Apart from the couple editors who are clearly trying to disrupt my editing experience, I'm more than happy to collaborate with others on the talk page regarding specific content concerns, in order to make this entry more polished. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote remains unchanged, the sources do not reach WP:NCORP nor GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good! Didn't mean to suggest these edits would change any votes, was just offering a status update + an invite for talk page collaboration. Having given this a bit more thought on my gym break, I think I'll remove the construction template for now and just revisit things when this discussion has ended. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well sourced and improved page. There is no RS guideline which rejects local coverage. RS is RS. Lightburst (talk) 04:32, 22 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. While consensus shifted away from deletion outright as the discussion progressed and socks were outed, late !votes for merge leaves the community's ultimate assessment of notability unclear. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TaxProf Blog

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

~~The page fails WP:GNG.~~

~~References check:~~

~~1. No “Tax Prof Blog” name is found on page 114 (where it is supposed to be). Even if it is there, it is definitely just mentioned and doesn’t contribute to notability.~~

~~2. Very short mention – no in-depth coverage.~~

~~3. There is not even a mention of TaxProf Blog on page 8 of the book.~~

~~4. I wasn’t able to verify this book.~~

~~5. Seems to be just one name among 100 in the list of blogs. Doesn’t contribute to Wikipedia notability.~~

~~6. A short paragraph – not in-depth coverage.~~

~~7. An opinion of Paul Caron, the founder of the Tax Prof Blog. Not an eligible source.~~

~~8. The blog itself. MartinPict (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Just a comment, as I don't really care about this article one way or the other, but it's pages 488–489 that are at issue, not page 114 (which is the volume number). There we can read "When the U.S. News potential ranking was announced, the responses were numerous. For example, Dean Paul Caron’s popular TaxProf Blog published over 20 entries on the report." I leave others to judge if this brief mention is enough to confer notability. Athel cb (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

First, analysis of references is flawed.

1. Nominator has confused volume number for page number.

3. Yes, there is. Not sure if nominator has confused page numbers again or what, but I can see it in front of me.

4. "I wasn't able to verify this book." Not sure why, it's right here. [51]

6. Incorrect description of source. Significant coverage is not a word count, it is content that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". This 151-word reference is a direct and detailed description of the subject.

7. Incorrect description of source. It's a feature of the subject on law.com, an RS source.

Corrected Source Analysis: The article contains three significant treatments of the source in WP:RS (Canadian Tax Journal[52], law.com [53], and the Symposium on the Impact of Technology on Law), plus several additional short mentions of the source in RS that are sufficient to fill-out details on the subject, including being named one of the top legal blogs by ABA Journal [54] and separately established as the fifth most-trafficked legal blog [55].

Second, though an essay, our generally accepted WP:NMAG establishes that an outlet that "has made significant impact in its field or other area" and "has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works" is usually notable. The most cursory check just on JSTOR (which is not even a very thorough source for legal journals) finds the site referenced [56] in more than three-dozen scholarly journals in the last five years while a search on Google Books shows the outlet cited [57] in more than 25 books, the majority from academic publishers. Chetsford (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC); edited 15:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Canadian Tax Journal's article is an example of significant coverage. It just talks about how Caron blogs daily and posts some articles in a specific niche, i.e., American law. I'm checking other sources. US-Verified (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've got to agree with the source analysis, they just don't give notability. Simple mentions at most aren't enough, rest are about as useless for notability standards. I can't find anything, other than the site itself. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Symposium linked for Item 4 appears only as a landing page, I can't open the document, it appears un-related, talking about law libraries, not about blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't open the document" Per WP:OFFLINE, "Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources." "it appears un-related" A symposium about legal research is definitely related to the subject of legal media and this specific presentation deals with the subject to a sufficient level of depth. I'd strongly encourage you to choose to read the source. Chetsford (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not paying to access it nor can I get to a legal library with access. I'm trusting the source analysis above however; if you have access, how much of the Symposium report is dedicated to this blog? Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is, the other sources are non-useful from what I can tell. One iffy source and a bunch of useless ones, don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not paying to access it nor can I get to a legal library with access." So, to clarify, you haven't seen the source and the OP hasn't seen the source. And, due to personal inconvenience, you're not going to attempt to access it. Rather, you're going to assume it's a bad source and !vote Delete. (FYI, in general, our modus operandi in such circumstances is to "Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source.".) Chetsford (talk)

Correct. Based on the discussion below, it does not appear to be a useful source. Even if it is, it's one source, the rest appear about as un-helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pay for me to read it, be my guest. I'm not spending my money on it. Frankly, I don't expect much to be found. And it's at best one source, the rest are very trivial mentions. Unless it's a detailed 10 page report on the history of the blog, it still doesn't help us hit notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"If you want to pay for me to read it, be my guest." Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. We don't typically pay for !votes. "Unless it's a detailed 10 page report" I've been involved in hundreds of AfDs and this is, certainly, the first time I've ever heard that any source less than a "detailed 10 page report" is insufficient to meet our SIGCOV requirements. Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you respond to everything we say? BLUDGEON is a thing here as well. Oaktree b (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per @Chetsford. It's a law blog that has been covered fairly well by legal sources.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the Chetsford's arguments:

~~1. Nominator has confused volume number for page number. Even if I made that mistake, it is poorly technical. Chetsford still didn't show how that source was "in-depth coverage of TaxProfBlog".~~

3. Yes, there is. Not sure if nominator has confused page numbers again or what, but I can see it in front of me. I'd be excited to see that mention and how it makes the TaxProfBlog any notable for Wikipedia

4. "I wasn't able to verify this book." Not sure why, it's right here. Great, would you, @Chetsford, be so kind and discover for the Wikipedia community what the book wrote on TaxProfBlog and what page exactly?

6. Incorrect description of source. Significant coverage is not a word count, it is content that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". This 151-word reference is a direct and detailed description of the subject. It is still a short paragraph - there is no universe where you can call a cat "an elephant".

~~7. Incorrect description of source. It's a feature of the subject on law.com, an RS source. Anyone who reads that source, will understand it is an interview or an opinion piece.~~

As for TulsaPoliticsFan - it is a stochastic comment. It would be nice to hear more arguments here, in particular to my detailed report. Bottom line: we do not have any significant and in-depth coverage here as WP:GNG requires.

~~MartinPict (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment I've reviewed the Canadian Tax Journal article. It explains what a blog is, tells us how long this blog has been around, and advises us it's used in the US by law professors. It's also hoped it stays around for a while. The thing takes up a barely a third of the page. A RS, yes, but it's trivial coverage. So we have 5, maybe 6 trivial mentions of this blog, some in RS. That's barely at GNG. Still a !delete for me. And please don't ping me, I've spent too much time on this kerfuffle already. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "we do not have any significant and in-depth coverage here" This appears to be incorrect. We have three RS that meet the conventional definition of SIGCOV (Canadian Tax Journal, law.com, and the Symposium on the Impact of Technology on Law), supplemented by additional RS of supplementary character. It is true that this does not meet the ... ahem, novel ... argument that SIGCOV requires a minimum of "10 pages". I have to respectfully reject the argument that SIGCOV requires 10+ pages per source as inconsistent with our policies and guidelines, as well as any convention or precedent that exists anytime, anywhere, ever, at any point, on WP. Chetsford (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was using it as an over-the-top example. I digress. Oaktree b (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is an unfair assessment of my comment. Seconding another users analysis is not a stochastic comment. I happen to agree with @Chetsford's stance that coverage of a legal source in other legal sources combined with the fact the blog is cited by scholars meets the notability guidelines. The fact I didn't re-type out their analysis isn't a reason to disregard the fact I agree with them. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ - I agree with Oaktree B's comments. To be honest, the notability is very weak, and readers would be better served if we spend our time and energy on a topic that is actually notable, such as the founder of this website, Paul L. Caron.

- Ref #1 essentially states, For example, Dean Paul Caron's popular TaxProf Blog published over 20 entries on the report This is all I could find when I downloaded the file. It's not really significant coverage.

- Ref #2 is simply a mention.

- Ref #3's coverage in the book is insignificant. I will expand on this later.

- I can't comment on Ref #4, as it was a symposium and I don't have access to it. However, I suspect it would focus more on the professor, the blog's founder, rather than the blog itself.

- The article in Ref #5 isn't selective enough to be considered "significant coverage". It covered 100 blogs, all related to the legal field. Should we create 100 pages about these minor blogs? I think a list would serve better.

- I've already commented on Ref #6 above.

- Ref #7 is a Q&A session with Professor Caron, which, at best, is a primary source.

- Ref #8 is a backlink to the topic's website. US-Verified (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book: I'm including all the mentions of this blog in the cited book (I've access) below:

Paul Caron of the TaxProf Blog analyzed the data and concluded that the proportion of law school applicants with scores above 160 shrunk by 35 percent between 2010 and 2017.
The book probably cites Paul Caron and his website TaxProf Blog more than any other source. Caron’s blog is a must-read if you are interested in this topic. And Again, if you are interested in this topic, you should definitely read their websites Legal Evolution (Henderson), the Legal Whiteboard and TaxProf Blog (Organ), Excess of Democracy blog (Muller), and Computational Legal Studies blog (Katz).

That's it. It is clearly not significant enough. US-Verified (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't have access to it. However, I suspect" Guesses as to what a source might contain is not the foundation for a policy-based argument in the absence of actually viewing the source.

"Ref #7 is a Q&A session with Professor Caron" This contains significant expository coverage of the outlet itself separate from Caron's responses. I'm not sure if you were maybe making guesses on the content based on the title again?

"The article in Ref #5 isn't selective enough to be considered "significant coverage". I double-checked and it looks like "selectivity" isn't one of the criteria in our WP:SIGCOV guideline. And I'm not sure why the ABA Journal would not be selective enough in any case as it's unambiguously RS.

"I've already commented on Ref #6 above." Perhaps I missed it, but I don't believe you did. This is a 151-word treatment of the blog in a peer-reviewed journal. Chetsford

Also, could you address our generally accepted WP:NMAG essay that an outlet that "has made significant impact in its field or other area" and "has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works" is usually notable? As noted above, this has been cited in more than 50 academic journals and books from academic publishers in the last five years. Chetsford (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I re-checked the sources, too, and found that this blog is indeed cited in some academic sources, but let's not forget that literally anything can be cited that way in a certain context, i.e. it's not an indicator. As for the notability of the subject, for which we have clear criteria, it does not seem to me to have been established by the sources. Sources 1,2,5, and even 6 are trivial or too short mentions, 7 and 8 aren't independent, and 3 and 4 are offline sources. As for WP:OFFLINE, this suggests not only "assuming good faith", but also being able to show the community scans/photos of the source in question. Such a suggestion was voiced in this discussion but ignored. Suitskvarts (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"As for WP:OFFLINE, this suggests not only "assuming good faith", but also being able to show the community scans/photos of the source in question." That's incorrect. It says to AGF but that the provider may be able to provide a scan, however, obviously our WP:COPYVIO applies. It does, however, place the onus on the editor challenging the source to "Consider visiting your local library to obtain a copy". That suggestion was offered and it was ignored. I offer it again. An editor who is unwilling to AGF or to visit their local library could, as a last resort, verify that the treatment in this source occupies a full four pages by searching the snippet view at Google Books [58], though, of course they would be unable to verify the specifics of its content. An editor unwilling to undertake even that minimal effort is probably not registering a GF !vote. Chetsford (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. This is the guideline that every topic must meet. WP:NMAG is an essay, no longer a community-vetted guideline. This discussion has been bludgeoned by the article creator. It appears that they have some sort of WP:COI, and their most recent edits (work) in June are related to the TaxProf Blog, which is concerning. We need more independent opinions and less bludgeoning by Chetsford. 5.42.92.163 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: !Voting on this AfD was the first ever edit originating from this IP. Chetsford (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Close_at_AfD. See longer note momentarily.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin note: Per request of @Chetsford: at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Close_at_AfD, I am relisting this following restoration. This AfD was sock infested (not known at time of closure, no one is contesting the close) and with what we know now, I probably would have relisted it. History of the socking is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MartinPict. Chetsford requested an N/C close, which I was willing to do noting that an established editor could revisit it -- but I feel it better to establish a clean consensus here & now vs. a bandaid solution and potentially a new AfD. On the merits of the website, I am neutral. I leave it to someone else if sock strikes are needed as with the small template, I get muddled in syntax. Star Mississippi 01:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well now that the sock was removed, I'm still not showing notability. Trivial mentions for what seems to be a well-loved thing in the legal community. I was hoping for a redirect, but there doesn't seem to be any viable target. Maybe the community that uses the blog will try to get some of the journals above to publish a more extensive article and we can revisit this later. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Oaktree. The Future of Law Libraries article, which is the longest of the RS in the aticle, is four pages long. Your comment seems to indicate you don't believe four pages of journal coverage constitutes SIGCOV. It might help us to identify additional sources that would satisfy you if you could be more specific as to your unique SIGCOV requirements. You previously said nothing is SIGCOV "unless it's a detailed 10 page report", but then said you were just kidding. I feel like we're getting a moving target so if I could politely nail you down to something I may be able to satisfy you. Chetsford (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further comments on this matter. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Paul Caron with minor rewrite. Keep See notes in chart below. Very borderline GNG for the blog, but given the number of times their work is cited, and their other work (some of which is in here) the blogger seems to meet WP:AUTHOR.1 easily and likely WP:ACADEMIC. Likely a single article for the two is sufficient, and if ever necessary a split would be easy. —siro χ o 09:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:siroxo
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Wayne, Leslie (March 26, 2008). New York Times.	~ is tied to quote from author	trivial mention	✘ No
Law Library Journal. 114 (4): 489. 2022.		doesn't actually cover the blog, this could establish author (Caron) notability	✘ No
Weiss, Debra (October 30, 2008). ABA Journal.	The subject compiled the list	list entry	✘ No
Barton, Benjamin (2019). Fixing Law Schools.		trivial mention outside of citations, this could help to establish author notability	✘ No
The Future of Law Libraries: Selected Articles from a Symposium on the Impact of Technology on Law Libraries and Law Classrooms of the Future.	seems to be authored by Caron	sigcov per Chetsford, could also establish notability for Caron if it has citations	✘ No
McDonough, Molly ABA Journal.		~ short entry on 100 item list	~ Partial
USA Today		citation (more minor author notability)	✘ No
Washington Post		citation (more minor author notability)	✘ No
Above the Law		citation (more minor author notability)	✘ No
law.com		cant see it but should be same as above per this arcticle	✘ No
Macnaughton, Alan (2004). Canadian Tax Journal.		borderline, mostly describes what a blog is, but should count	✔ Yes
Sloan, Karen (July 17, 2019). law.com.	"...Paul Caron reflects on..."		✘ No
TaxProf Blog.			✘ No
TAX NOTES (provided below in this discussion)	Relies on founder		✘ No
The CPA Journal (provided below in this discussion)			✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Thanks for your thorough assessment, Siroxo. Regarding, The Future of Law Libraries, Canon is only mentioned twice in the four page article on the outlet; would that contribute to Canon's notability? Also, you say you "can't see" the law.com article. I can see it and can affirm that this is more than a citation mention of the site.
Also, you reference "the blogger" and "their work is cited." I think you're misunderstanding. There is not "a blogger". This is an outlet with many writers. Indeed, as of the datestamp, the first two articles on the site are by people other than Canon. [59] [60] Chetsford (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Chetsford is probably right that a move would give Paul Caron too much credit. It's like SCOTUSBlog, somewhere between a legal newspaper and a law review; the word "blog" is kinda misleading and implies a level of informality and singular ownership that isn't actually present. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The Future of Law Libraries article the information I can find is via Google books (or other less detailed sources) which shows Caron as an author, which would suggest it's not an independent source. As to whether it establishes notability for Caron, that would be more on the scholar or author angle, depending on how cited (or reviewed) this piece is and so on. I will update the above table to reflect that it provides sigcov, but as it's not independent it won't really affect the discussion. —siro χ o 21:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not going to try to figure out what on earth has been going on in this discussion. But in any event, even if the article subject did not meet the GNG I would still argue for inclusion per WP:NMAG (which despite lacking formal guideline status provides a standard more appropriately tailored to our purpose of being an encyclopedia). But it does meet the GNG, so that point is moot. Indeed I suspect one might struggle to find a single US or Canadian bar journal that has not provided some coverage of TaxProf Blog at some point in the past 19 years. At any rate, we seem to be past the point of haggling over sources, but just in case I will note nontrivial coverage at The CPA Journal and Tax Notes, among others. -- Visviva (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Visviva. While the TAX NOTES source is not independent, The CPA Journal is and does indeed seem to get us over the GNG threshold. I've added it to the table and updated my !vote above. As this discussion shows, It's taken a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to find two independent sources, as so many of them rely on Caron's words. We do have to be careful about not relying on the subject (or someone closely tied to the subject) in order to maintain NPOV, so I appreciate your sourcing. While we do technically have enough for GNG, if you have other sources it would definitely benefit to add them here or in the article. —siro χ o 02:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're on the same page, but I would have to quibble a bit here. Tax Notes is an independent (and AFAIK fairly well-respected) periodical in the field, and the author Warren Rojas is a journalist of decent repute. Tax Notes is normally buried deep behind a paywall so I included the convenience link to the PDF on lawprofessorblogs.com, but I don't think there's an independence issue there. I know it has become fashionable to discount all coverage that draws on interviews with the article subject but a) Caron is not the article subject and b) I think this practice is questionable under both the GNG's definition of independence and the relevant WP:OR footnote which states that whether an interview is a primary source "depend[s] on context". The general dissensus about any bright-line rule in this 2018 discussion of the question (possibly the most recent?) is illustrative. In this case, IMO Rojas' independent reportorial judgment, context and analysis combine to make this a cromulent source. But anyway, here are a couple of cites that go more to significance than sourceability, but would have IMO some relevance to article-worthiness: Christopher M. Fairman describing the blog as "lauded as a must-read in the legal community and general blogosphere" and a 2023 Florida Tax Review article calling it "widely recognized in the academic tax community as the leading tax oriented blog". On a similar note, the ABA Journal's "Blawg 100" appears to be pretty widely cited in articles and has featured TaxProf Blog on numerous occasions -- the blog was inducted into the Blawg 100 Hall of Fame (reader view required) in 2013. -- Visviva (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what you're saying in terms of interviews, and have no reason to doubt the quality of Tax Notes or Rojas' work. This source in general does seem excellent, indeed. My quibble is basically with the fact that the entirety of coverage of "TaxProf Blog" in this piece derives from Caron's input. If the piece were more widely about TaxProf with this small input from Caron, then I'd agree that the fact that Rojas conducted an interview of Caron would not prevent the "independence", but it's not the case there. I guess that's my personal "bright line" of independence: whether it seems the bulk of information about the subject in question was sourced via someone close to the subject. I don't merely decide on the presence of an interview. To look at it more broadly, if the bulk of coverage about a subject relies directly on the words of people involved, I can't see a way in which Wikipedia can preserve NPOV. Anyways, seeing your user page I will respect your desire to keep discussion short, and will not presume anything of it if you choose not to reply. —siro χ o 05:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've created page on Paul L. Caron, so I'm changing my vote from delete to redirect or selective merge as appropriate, in accordance with WP:ATD. The coverage is mostly related to Caron, so it's better to cover the blog within his biography rather than creating a permanent stub. I'd also encourage those who voted delete to change their votes to redirect. Thank you. US-Verified (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I still don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Paul L. Caron. Thanks to @US-Verified for making this improvement. Otherwise, keep per @Visviva's comments and links. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge as suggested above. Good work User:US-Verified for improving the situation. BusterD (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG is met via the Law.com, Canadian Tax Journal, and the CPA Journal sources. However, WP:NWEB also advises us that When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. As the blog is widely recognized in the academic tax community as the leading tax oriented blog[61], its signifiance on education or society is indisputable.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:01, 14 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. After being relisted twice no significant discussion has taken place other than one keep !vote and the original nominator. I'm closing this as no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dais Records

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

Record labels are a business organization whose line of business just happens to deal with business; and that doesn't exempt from having to meet WP:NCORP. Does not satisfy CORPDEPTH, ORGIND. Graywalls (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, California, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bands are a business organization whose line of business just happens to deal with business, too; that doesn't preclude from having alternate means of establishing notability, and there's no reason to ignore the expertise of those interested in music when deciding on the encyclopedic value of a record label. This one has a substantial roster of noteworthy acts, which suggests importance in the sense used at WP:MUSIC, and in addition to the Fact article already cited in the page, they have received quite a bit of notice in press outlets - [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]. Chubbles (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we have WP:NBAND for bands record labels are not classified as such. There has been several discussions and general consensus is that record labels are evaluated as WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those conversations have been terribly robust, and there were several discussions at WP:MUSIC about adding explicit criteria for labels, as well. In any case, there is no logical reason why bands should be exempted from WP:NCORP if labels aren't, as well; bands and musical ensembles are most certainly groups of more than one person formed together for a purpose, and indeed, for a commercial purpose in almost all cases. Chubbles (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on CORP vs MUSIC. Seems to me the criteria rests on NCORP Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_38#RfC:_Notability_criteria_for_record_label Graywalls (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 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!} 02:57, 7 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!} 04:55, 14 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. A rare Keep in this flood of Doctor Who AFD nominations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vislor Turlough

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

As much as I like Turlough, he does not meet SIGCOV. He is generally notable in the series and has grounds for potentially passing GNG, but there quite literally exists no sources for him that establish his notability separately. He should probably be merged into the Companions article. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) While the character is notable, there's nothing here worth keeping. An editor could gather sources and recreate the article in future. U-Mos (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent notability from the series itself. Not suitable for an article without WP:SIGCOV about him in direct detail. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Companion (Doctor Who). Likely enough search term to not be hard deleted Dronebogus (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I'm not entirely sure each companion needs an article, I see no value in deleting the article on a single companion when all the others have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you know of WP:OTHERSTUFF. And bundling articles often leads to problems if a select few are indeed notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely I do, but that doesn't invalidate my comment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering multiple companion articles have been nominated for deletion, it does seem an odd stance to me - evidently if more than one nomination were successful, then there would be more than one companion without an article. Also worth noting that Katarina (Doctor Who) was recently redirected. U-Mos (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which also falls under the header of WP:OSE! In any case, sources have now been found to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep.

Has it been established that, of the 63,000 results for searching ''"Dr Who" "turlough"'' in Google there are no RS or SIGCOV? There is clearly coverage, and surely it is up to the person wanting to delete an established article to show that it is not significant, to some extent? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has enough coverage as depicted by the sources, thus illustrating notability. However, I am going to add some reception to the article to make it less in universe. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) . Article has no reception/analysis and is just a plot summary, claims above that there is coverage are not backed up by explanation where that coverage exists. Feel free to ping me is I missed a good source mentioned somewhere, but right now what I see is standard WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update/comment: I have added some reception to the article now so it is less in universe. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but that's "listicle" level of coverage... ("#10 on his list of the "10 Most Hated Doctor Who Characters"). It's a start, and certainly more valuable content to merge than most of the plot summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough to establish individual notability for the character. Companion is a major role within the show and even then attracted media attention.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had a look at some of the sources available at The Internet Archive and found a few that look like they contribute to the subject meeting GNG and/or would be useful to help build the article. There's a section on the character, and some other mentions, in Doctor Who : the companions by John Nathan-Turner (so not an independent source, but still usable IMO); some commentary alongside an interview with the actor in issue 17 of Fantasy Empire magazine; possibly some usable comments in Queers dig Time Lords; and some observations on the character by Peter Davison in Is there life outside the box?, for example. (@Piotrus: - I'm not sure whether you would agree with any of these.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose Thanks. You did not list any of those, and I am pressed for time ATM, so if you want me to review them, well, links would be appreciated. Otherwise I can only say that this is the case of WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Fair point. I've added some links. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are secondary sources after all, which I believe fullfill the requirements of WP:GNG. As some, like Companions: Fifty Years of Doctor Who Assistants are quite easy to find in a usual WP:BEFORE search, I have to agree with Rick Jelliffe that a discussion why those should not fullfill WP:GNG should have been provided by the nominator. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 13 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. Any other decision at this point in the discussion would involve with me basing the closure on my own opinion which is permitted. So, no consensus it is and it might be suitable to have another AFD after a suitable period of time has passed (weeks or months, not days). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Gromyko

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

Notability is not inherited; not notable in herself but only as the spouse of a notable person. All sources are minor or in passing, so WP:BIOFAMILY. Merger with Andrei Gromyko might be suitable. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Russia. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ru:Громыко, Лидия Дмитриевна was deleted in March 2020. Absolutely nothing remarkable in the biography. She played no role in the political life of the USSR. --Khinkali (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. First, the relevant rule. WP:BIOFAMILY consists of the following two sentences: Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. (My emphasis.) In other words, the fact of being related to a notable person has neither a positive nor a negative effect, and likewise the fact that a person received coverage only because of their relationship to another person also does not detract from the value of such sources. Moving on: I can't evaluate any Russian sources (although they seem numerous), but even in the Western press she attracted sufficient coverage to support a basic article. This 1959 Der Spiegel piece has brief but nontrivial detail, as do the numerous stories around her being selected to escort Nancy Reagan around Leningrad four decades later. Moreover, despite her deliberately low profile, she was sometimes noted for her own diplomatic activity, whether advocating for a limited test ban treaty in the 1960s or warning Nelson Rockefeller about Cuba in 1943. On the whole, this is a bit of an awkward one as, at least in the Western press, Gromyko was mostly noted for not being very noticeable -- but at any rate she was noted for it, quite widely and over many decades. A merge to Andrei Gromyko wouldn't be the worst thing, but having an article about two different people is always going to be a bit awkward and doesn't work well with things like categories. Given that she meets the standard criterion of article-worthiness I am inclined to think that the articles should be kept separate. -- Visviva (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was originally a merge, but there's nothing really to merge - everything that you would merge is already in her husband's article in some form. Almost all of the sources in the article are on him, not her, and is not enough to support GNG/a standalone article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 9 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!} 04:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrei Gromyko. There are multiple sources about the Nancy Reagan incident, but that was typical "what message is Russia sending?" cold war speculation. Being able to cobble together biographical details isn't enough to support a stand-alone article for a person who was only given any attention at all because of her spouse. Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soviet Union asking for opinions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:32, 17 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. Happy to userfy this for a restart but the majority of the keep votes underline the paucity of strong sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Mahmud

AfDs for this article:

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

Very poorly sourced. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Somalia, Pakistan, and Czech Republic. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poland and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or draftify. My source query only confirmed this is not a hoax (there was such an ambassador in Pakistani service, according to some snippets in Google Books). What I see are however mentions in passing or press release or equivalents. Prior AfD 10 years ago ended as keep b/c he reached the rank of air commodore, which was said to be equivalent of general and passing the now-depreciated WP:SOLDIER. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable." So we have two aspects of "close but no banana". The article is also mostly unrerferenced, and the refs cited are poor. Maybe there are some sources we haven't found, but what we have is poor - and poorly written (one of the sources is youtube, poorly described and even mispelled as "vido tribute"). The creator is not very active; maybe they can ask for WP:REFUND when they come back and learn of this deletion and improve it in their userspace; I also wouldn't be opposed to moving it there instead of deletion --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winston Churchill was in the same rank I also added some references.WhyWeAll (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. US-Verified (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person seems to just cross the line into relevance because of an interesting (and verifiable) history, including being one of the few Indian pilots that took part in the second world war (verified by the Indian Air Force) and also for his role in a couple of fairly significant events, namely, the defense of Zia ul Haq in a court martial (he later became the President of Pakistan) and his participation in the creation of the Hamood-ur-Rehman report which had extremely significant consequences for the Pakistani Military after their 1971 war. Sourcing is weak, but NOT non-existent...and allowances need to be made for the time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.234.200 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 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!} 05:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we should trust what sources are there in my opinion and give the benefit of the doubt given the historical background and context for the subject. - Indefensible (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. NYC Guru (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played a role in notable historical events. I found two articles about him in local U.S. newspapers in the 1950s and added them to the article. While there are citation gaps, this article needs improvement, not deletion. CT55555(talk) 13:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak draftify, otherwise I guess delete. I really appreciate the work that CT55555 has put in, both here and in the article. But I'm not really thrilled with those sources, especially the dinner party one, and it doesn't seem like they really furnish much to build an article out of. Nor do they really verify the encyclopedic significance of the subject, which would be helpful in a borderline case. I would acknowledge that the Robins article with its two paragraphs of biographical information meets the SIGCOV requirement that no original research is needed to extract the content. But I think we're still a little short of the NBASIC threshold of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The mid-to-late 20th century is a difficult period to research in general, and the best material here might be in sources that are either offline or in nonpublic databases, and also possibly in Urdu. But I would say that I'm not really seeing the kind of signature in the search results that would make me think "there must be more out there", which leaves me unpersuaded that we really have encyclopedia material here. So I find myself leaning toward either slow deletion (draftification) or the fast kind. (I am saddened to see that the former SOLDIER essay seems to have been deprecated based on an RFC close by an involved and now CU-blocked user who ignored multiple reasoned dissents. But I guess it is what it is at this point.) -- Visviva (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The beauty of the net is that the cost of maintaining marginal information is fairly low now. While the cited references may not be that significant, some of events this person participated in were very significant, particularly for the country it impacted. These include the Hamood-ur-Rehman commission, the defense of the future President of Pakistan in a court martial and being a key player in circumventing a US arms embargo on Pakistan via Turkey when Pakistan was in a war with India. Once deleted these will, given the time period they relate to, just vanish, much like tears in the rain (shout out to Rutger Hauer). Yes this may be marginal, but just the fact it is attracting this much attention in the deletion discussion may indicate that it may be better to err on the side of preservation rather than on the side of deletion...one action always rectifiable, one, permanent. 100.36.234.200 (talk) 02:10, 27 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. ✗plicit 03:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isiah Collie

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

10 appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This piece is a good start, but not enough. JTtheOG (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bahamas. JTtheOG (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:32, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023 Tel Aviv attack

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

Arguably fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. This article is about your average attack during the Israel-Palestine conflict and, aside from some coverage updating the victim count, doesn't look to be significant from a NOTNEWS standpoint. Also, the death toll of two isn't much either. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Sadly a mundane Israel-Palestine conflict occurrence. Not discernably notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RAPID also meets WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE [67],[68],[69] --Shrike (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It meets both the WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT, as detailed above, and does not violate WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, notable and violent events in West Asia and elsewhere keep coming. The experience for Israel is that books and news media keep getting back to such events. gidonb (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have major long term consequences. The only coverage is news coverage, not sustained secondary coverage. As such, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a collection of interesting news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough news coverage that it WP:GNG is met (beyond WP:NOTNEWS). ParadaJulio (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RAPID.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTNEWS would apply here if it were a "routine" car ramming or coverage was limited to the local police blotter; this one received WP:SIGCOV in international media like the BBC, France 24, CNN, Reuters, and more WP:RS, clearly qualifying it under WP:GNG. The event also received news coverage after the event. Longhornsg (talk) 04:55, 19 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tara McGrath

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

Person fails WP:GNG and is WP:TOOSOON as she has currently not been confirmed to the position of United States Attorney for the Southern District of California. While secondary sources seem to exist per a WP:BEFORE check, they all pertain solely to the nomination announcement itself and lack either the neutrality or needed WP:SIGCOV needed to keep the article in the mainspace as is. Let'srun (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Agree that this is one of those WP:TOOSOON situations where the timing is not quite right...but the situation could easily change within the next six months or so, so it's best not to waste all the time and effort that has already gone into getting the article this far. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:50, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Saintil

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

Two appearances for the United States Virgin Islands national soccer team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found passing mentions of his high school and college career on Newspapers.com (1 2). Not much else. JTtheOG (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 13:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:31, 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 delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 01:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Monteiro

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

Being a three-star college football recruit (on a five-star scale) is not notable, this article indicates there are over 2,000 three-star recruits every year. This is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, if Monteiro has a notable college career it can be recreated, but for now there isn't much in terms of notability. Yes, they have a few articles about their commitment to Pittsburgh, but fails WP:YOUNGATH as the coverage is routine and not substantial. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Way WP:TOOSOON, especially for a three-star recruit who may or may not ever become notable. Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for TOOSOON. A mid level college player isn't terribly notable, there are several hundred a year that show up on the sports scene. This isn't Michael Jordan in high school, it's a kid that's average-good in doing what may others do. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. I did find one significant source [70] that doesn't seem to be based on the same press release as the others (such as [71][72]). Other than that, the best I could find was a match report that doesn't really cover him outside of that single game. Alvaldi (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Absolutely too soon. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely TOOSOON. Many 5-star recruits (of which there are only 30 or so in each cycle) don't meet GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:09, 11 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. Closing per Liz's comment during the last relist. No further discussion has taken place and there is no clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special Executive

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

Relatively minor group of villains from Comics. Can't find any notable sources, and the group is basically covered by Technet's article. (And that article's notability is already debateable.) I propose merging with Technet for the time being. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage in Moore bios: -
On top of the sources already in the article that's a lot more notable than a good chunk of the Marvel pollution even before looking at Amazing Heroes, Wizard (at least one of AM's interviews in Wizard fingers the SE as the reason he got pissed with Marvel), Speakeasy etc (I'm hip-deep in Fleetway so not sure when I'll be able to look at that). I'd say Keep or at worst merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/beep-the-meep-and-9-other-classic-doctor-who-comic-characters-that-could-appear-in-the-tv-series/ We Got This Covered clickbait listicle, but shows up on GNews BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: more Lance Parkin stuff, including quotes about creation by Moore taken from things not on Google - https://comicsforum.org/2012/09/05/doctor-who-and-the-genesis-of-alan-moore-by-lance-parkin/ BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions on CBR and Comicon: -

-https://www.cbr.com/jaspers-warp-alan-moore-x-men/

-https://www.comicon.com/2023/03/18/art-from-arts-sake-200-a-celebration-of-the-daredevils-at-40/

-https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/5-alan-moore-comics-ready-for-the-watchmen-treatment/

While not in-depth, that they can be mentioned by so many notable sources suggests they're worth a page.

-https://lanceparkin.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/alan-moore-interview-part-iii-scary-dog-sun-dodgers-rob-liefeld-urinals/ - another AM interview with a nugget of information in it.

The in-depth stuff and tying it together is surely what Wikipedia's here for. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fancruft that fails WP:GNG. Lacks reliable secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (edited) Lacks reliable secondary sources to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must say here I'm a little interested in finding out why the sources listed both in the article and here aren't reliable, or at least enough to argue for a merge. There's a worrying trend on Wikipedia for subjecting articles on fiction to a different standard to many others (random villages, obscure one-off aircraft, unremarkable sporting seasons etc), including a rising use of "fancruft" as a drive-by pejorative. Not saying that's what happens here, but some conversation about
- a) how Tor, two Alan Moore biographies, Modern Masters and Bleeding Cool aren't reliable secondary sources
- and b) what's "fancrufty" about the article and how that could be improved
would very much be appreciated to ensure further effort on fictional articles doesn't go to waste.

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:42, an article needs significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. It is incredibly common for editors to throw a reliable source into an AfD simply because it has a sentence or two mentioning the subject and then call it proof of notability.

Saying that one-off aircraft or random villages are subjected to a different standard is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pop culture stuff simply gets more attention because the material has more fans. Very few people have likely visited *random village in the middle of nowhere*.

"Fancruft" is another way of saying "this article is entirely or almost entirely plot". Non-fancrufty articles minimize the plot elements and maximize the characters' reception and importance in the real world, if any. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One example of a lack of SIGCOV is looking at the Tor article. Tor offers significant coverage of the specific "Black Sun Rising" comic, but not the Special Executive themselves. Does this suggest perhaps some things might be split from Doctor Who Magazine? Perhaps, but we're talking about the actual comic here. Characters from the comic are different and not discussed in great detail. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, typing while typing. So a potential answer would be to merge to List of Doctor Who comic stories, rather than outright delete as you and @Shooterwalker have advocated. Or to do an article on "Black Sun Rising" and mention the SE in it, which seems ridiculously counter-intuitive and counter to any other media coverage on Wikipedia. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that could be a possible ATD. Problem is there is no proof that the comics themselves are notable, and Doctor Who Magazine is written in such a fannish way that it's hard to figure out anything concrete. But if you could prove that the original comic or comics was actually standalone notable, it would be a viable target for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps to find a consensus, I would accept a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the Tor source and Modern Masters are both quite in-depth and not a sentence or two, same with the Lance Parkin books. Even counting the Parkin books as one, that's three in-depth reliable sources, and just from what can be looked up on Google. Again, a merge as minimum seems tenable, though the article could be reinforced with the aforementioned sources to be standalone by most standards.

With respect, OtherStuffExists is another thing that seems to be lapsing into overuse and a dismissive term to excuse the fact that poor-quality, low-notability articles have been left to fester on Wikipedia for years and yet it's only when people try to improve them AfDs and the like tend to be triggered. Saying "yeah a load of Wikipedia is shit but this less shit bit needs to be deleted *now*!!!!" seems like an unhelpful position to take. That's the sort of attitude that led the Special Executive article sitting there for 13 years tagged for various source reasons and all but unsourced, but then when someone comes in and puts some work into addressing that it gets caught up in someone's mass prod and people who haven't given a fig about the subject before suddenly have strong opinions. No offense to anyone, but that policy seems absurd when applied to this case. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it can be down to shifting consensus where previously articles that might have been assumed to simply need editing and expansion are now realized to be unsalvageable. So, while it seems like the article may have been unacceptable for all of those 13 years, it may have just been thought of as in need of a bit of extra work before. Per WP:ARTICLEAGE, consensus can shift. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the fact that people don't want to sift through mountains of fannish content to find the bad stuff. Maybe they aren't interested in nominating the particular articles themselves, or are active somewhere else, but when it comes up for a vote, they will still follow policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So... now that the article has been moved towards acceptability it's the time to call it as unsalvageable? Again, both that and the haste to outright delete the article strike me as the wrong way of doing things, and very off-putting to anyone looking to contribute to Wikipedia going forward. What's the point in adding sources or other content to extant articles if it's just going to get arbitrarily deleted whenever someone goes on a tagging rampage? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its the editor's job to decide whether the article is likely to be deleted. If it's got very solid sourcing, then it will probably withstand the so-called "tagging rampage." The sources are all listed there for everyone to see. If its sourcing isn't solid, checking for WP:SIGCOV should probably be a first priority before adding a great deal of content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so do all the research no-one else has bothered with *first* and then just write it off and don't bother because someone might quibble about it some random point down the line? Again, that seems obstructive to the ongoing good of the project, potentially intimidating to any new editors or anyone who decides to improve past procedural negligence and, frankly, laziness (IIRC I either found the page through the list of clean-up required comic articles or found the Jaspers' Warp page on the same list and followed to Special Executive, I forget the order as it's not important; therefore that no-one else bothered to do anything about it either way for multiple years, despite having ample opportunity to do so). Some areas of Wikipedia seem desperately short of enthusiastic, knowledgeable editors and it would be a shame if a dogmatic approach where recent edits are held to a higher set of standards than older ones contributed to that.

Modern Masters is solid, but naturally doesn't come up fully searchable on Google (and nor should it as profit margins for that sort of thing must be wafer-thin). Same goes for the Moore biogs; all come up on Google Books, which is one of the things editors are suggested to use to find sources. The sources are, IMHO, robust enough to pass and probably shouldn't have been tagged as AfD so rashly without some sort of intermediate discussion on a talk page or via notability tags. Again, where was this rush to delete the article a year ago when it was shit, and had been tagged as shit for some time? That someone didn't bother to check it for decades or didn't care enough to take it to AfD then strikes me as a flawed explanation, however many principles can be used to excuse it.

Pokelego's spate of tagging crashed the AfD software, and was possibly bad faith as there's little sign of BEFORE being done for many of the articles, and no sign of adding anything to the discussion beyond the nominations. His/her/their behaviour means I'm going to lose too much sleep describing it as a "rampage", if I'm honest. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to refer to WP:SOURCESEXIST in this case. People can claim sources are "out there" until they're blue in the face, but if they are unable to prove it when an AfD nomination comes up, then it's not notable. Could they be in print somewhere, as you stated? Perhaps, but whoever made the article didn't bother to look for them. There's no rule that says articles can't get a do-over as a draft if sources are later found. Right now, the demonstrated sources don't seem to show notability for the characters. The spate of nominations was disruptive but not provably done in bad faith as for the most part the nominated articles indeed appear to be minor and trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a pass for sources when rewriting it and what I found on the first pass seemed to justify the article, what with massively improving it over the version tagged with maintenance tags everyone ignored for a decade-plus because they "didn't bother" to do anything about it either way. At the time there seemed no need to dig into print archives any further than had already been done. That someone would declare them unsatisfactory having taken no previous interest in the article was not something factored in at the time; I apologise profusely for not anticipating that by editing the article and attempting to improve it I was actively moving it towards deletion, and for not having my entire physical archive in one location.

IIRC, I updated the article with materials I had found when working on Captain Britain, hence the focus on that side of things. Having gleaned what I could from that material and moved on to other projects, returning Marvel UK-related material to storage in favour of other stuff. Again, seeing as the largely unsourced article had sat tagged and unchallenged for 15 years and I merely added further sources to it, an objection 10 weeks later by someone who'd never cared before was not something I anticipated.

FWIW, @Pokelego999 is having access problems; he/she/they have posted to my talk page User talk:BoomboxTestarossa#Response to the current discussion in Special Executive's AfD on the subject. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This and some other AfD pages may need an extra week for discussion. A massive spike in nominations just prior to the 4th of July holiday has taxed both the human and machine parts of this proccess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today_is_semi-broken

Rjjiii (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - recent improvements by BoomboxTestarossa show the potential for this topic, but if consensus is against keeping then a merge seems more reasonable than deletion. Not sure where exactly it would be merged if necessary, but they are mentioned the most at Jaspers' Warp so that is a possibility. BOZ (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as those advocating Keep are open to Merging but there are two different Merge targets suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since this is still missing any reception/analysis despite claimed improvements, and I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV in sources above that goes beyond some plot summary. Feel free to ping me if I missed some good source and I'll reconsider my vote, but right now this still looks like WP:FANCRUFT with plot summary and little else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Since there was a bit of improvement but still no reception/analysis, I'd also say merge for the 'publication history' (to Doctor Who Magazine I guess). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a Moore biography as another source.Rjjiii (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added another source after looking through this discussion. Rjjiii (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added another source, 1980s dual interview with Alan Moore and Chris Claremont. Rjjiii (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On page 68, Parkin (2001) gives this info which could be worked into the publication history: To coincide with the arrival of the Special Executive in Captain Britain, their first appearance in the Time Lord strips were reprinted, slightly edited to downplay the link to Doctor Who, in The Daredevils issues 5-7 (May-July 1983). Issue 5 also has a text page from Moore re-introducing his creations. Also, BoomboxTestarossa, you suggested Parkin above and I've had a chance to track down and add those two bios to the sources. Do you have any other suggestions for print sources? Rjjiii (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly not specifically enough to cite in the next few weeks; I have read an interview where either Moore or Davis discussed a little about the group in relation to the former's fallout with Marvel UK, including the unusual British copyright law that allowed Moore to retain ownership of them, and him quitting Doctor Who strips in support of Steve (no relation) Moore. However, whether than was in Speakeasy, Modern Masters, Kimota, Amazing Heroes or even Wizard I am afraid I can't recall, and I do not have those materials to hand and probably won't until possibly August. I really should have nailed more down when I was working on the Miracleman pages as the sources overlap, but sadly didn't think it was a priority at the time, for which I apologise.
- In case it's lost in the debate, one of the links is a Lance Parkin interview (https://comicsforum.org/2012/09/05/doctor-who-and-the-genesis-of-alan-moore-by-lance-parkin/) that's actually fairly well cited even if the website itself seems to not necessarily be notable.
- The Daredevils #5 might well be worth a look; while a Marvel title a mixture of British culture and the magnificent Bernie Jaye meant the magazine's text features were often very candid (it ran an essay where Moore picked apart Stan Lee), though whether the SE page covered that I can't remember. I have the complete run but again my next storage run is a while off.
I feel there is the potential to move the article away from being all plot due to the group's short but catfight-filled history; there's the pre-professional creation; the being jammed into a Doctor Who strip for one of the medium's most famous and acclaimed writers earliest professional gigs; the first of many, many of said writer's spats with a publisher; the Captain Britain appearances; and Alan Davis reconfiguring the group as the Technet around Moore's ownership (not to mention Moore belatedly selling the characters, though I believe it's unclear if this happened in 1994 or 2001). With the right sources that's got to be a paragraph or so of non-plot content. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't apologize for that; even if you're outvoted isn't there an option to temporarily move the page to draft or user space for improvements? I've worked in the references that I could find and will un-watch this page, but feel free to {{ping}} me anytime. Rjjiii (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm thinking a cookie-cutter merge (with maybe a little compression; I remember not liking the "Unconfirmed members" bit at the time but didn't feel confident enough to gut it, while the list of members itself could probably be converted into a paragraph) to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations with a redirect might be a fair compromise in the meantime, assuming that once an AfD is filed we're locked into a hard decision. My objection is largely to the idea of flat delete; FWIW as noted above, the nominator didn't even mean to put the article forward for outright deletion. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not seeing any consensus here so the options are to close this discussion as No consensus or give this discussion another week. Another admin is free to close this early if you can see a consensus here which I've missed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 14 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 Class (2016 TV series). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coal Hill School

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite being a frequently recurring location and the main setting of an entire show, the location itself doesn't display individual notability. Outside of one Radio Times article I found discussing it in depth, it doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article doesn't meet WP:GNG without reliable third-party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Class (2016 TV series). I could not find evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but I always think that redirection is a better solution than outright deletion. I chose Class as a redirect target as that it is the main setting for the show and would seem more fitting than Doctor Who where it plays a more minor role by comparison. I would not entirely opposed to deletion, but since a viable redirect target does exist, I think that is preferable over that option as it would help readers. Aoba47 (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect due to this failing WP:GNG and being just an unencyclopedic plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 12 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 List of Doctor Who villains. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borusa

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite being a decently recurring character and notable antagonist in the classic era of the show, I just can't find any good sources referencing Borusa outside of passing mention. I feel it's possible for him to keep his article, but he needs additional sources that I just don't think exist. As of right now, he doesn't meet SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's an attempt at secondary coverage here, so I think this should have the opportunity to be built up or at least merged elsewhere. U-Mos (talk) 17:52, 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!} 00:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the List of Doctor Who characters. I don't see the attempt at secondary coverage User:U-Mos notes - no reception or analysis section, just plot summary all the way through (backstory, appearances...). Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per Piotrus. I also don't see enough WP:SIGCOV to write a meaningful reception/analysis section. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once again, List of Doctor Who characters can't be a redirect target as it is a redirect. Another suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who villains (maybe that's what people meant?) The work done on the article is impressive but from the sources I am able to access I would have to agree that they do not clear the WP:SIGCOV threshold that no original research is needed to extract the content. I would say mentions in plot summaries that are then strung into a story of the character are in, or at any rate uncomfortably near, OR territory. -- Visviva (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of Doctor Who villains is a reasonable redirect target. The target can also be revisited through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:28, 20 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!} 01:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C.D. Girls Inter College

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/C.D.Girls Inter College

Articles for deletion/C.D. Girls Inter College (2nd nomination)

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

Since the last AfD we are a lot stricter on school notability. Only primary sources provided, no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 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!} 00:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First AfD is here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/C.D.Girls_Inter_College. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no sources cited on the page, which in and of itself would yield a delete vote. When considering the prior AfD from 2016, that was before the 2017 RfC where WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES switched from assuming notability for post-secondary education to assuming not notability. If sources showing notability are found, I would be happy to change my vote.

Editchecker123 (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the small amount of referenced content to Rura#Education, where there seems to be plenty of room. Agree that there is nothing here to support a full article; disagree that this content is so unencyclopedic that it should be cast out entirely. -- Visviva (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to suggest Merge option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is not really much to merge. I guess maybe the pictures? - Indefensible (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hate to leave even a sentence of referenced encyclopedic information behind, but I would have no substantial objection to a redirect-without-merging. -- Visviva (talk) 04:05, 16 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 The Time Meddler. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Monk (Doctor Who)

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

An antagonist who appeared twice in Doctor Who's television history, and has generally been confined to spin-off media since. I can't find any sources relating to him, and thus I don't believe he meets GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable figure in the TV's show history with an ongoing afterlife in other media and some sources already existing in the article. Rufus Hound has discussed the character in recent interviews, so there's scope for improvement. U-Mos (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out Hound was quoted from a twitter conversation, not interviewed, but it was still reported by reliable sources. I've added that and brought across some other material to start a development section on the article. U-Mos (talk) 08:51, 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!} 00:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An interesting, useful, and, as far as my knowledge goes, accurate article. I should be sorry to see it removed. Charles.bowyer (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles.bowyer WP:ITSINTERESTING, WP:ITSUSEFUL... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to The Time Meddler or List of Doctor Who villains. There's a clear WP:ATD and no evidence of notability or significance in the article. WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a valid reason to keep. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Time Meddler. Some bits of genuine information but no-one has provided sources that say, in big red letters, “THIS IS NOTABLE”. The excuses to keep the article are really not good, like WP:JUSTNOTABLE, WP:INTERESTING, WP:USEFUL, WP:TRUE, and WP:PLEASEDONT

Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Time Meddler or List of Doctor Who villains. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to articles above, unless someone improves this with reception/analysis section so that it meets GNG. Right now it's mostly a plot summary WP:FANCRUFT, I fear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to The Time Meddler. Open minded on target, but there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:36, 13 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. This is a messy situation and I'm probably going to get yelled at for closing this as a non-admin, however, the nominator is now on the keep side of the field and there seems to be a larger majority that wish to keep the article than redirect the article. Since redirection is not a deletion, I feel that the discussion for redirection can be taken up on the talk page or another avenue. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polly (Doctor Who)

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

While she is a companion, and a classic series one at that, Polly's article, alongside Ben's, rely excessively on primary sources, and I can't find any sources for her, either. Given that she is a companion, there may be bits and pieces of reception scattered about here and there, but I'm not sure if it's enough to warrant a full article. Worst comes to worst, she should be merged with Ben's article, or merged into the Companions article. As it stands right now, she doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character with some sources, and ample potential for more from DVD features/interviews. Improve, but don't delete. U-Mos (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Keep Notable companion side character should stand in line with WP:WAF, makes sense to keep. Gerblinpete (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. While I'm not entirely sure each companion needs an article, I see no value in deleting the article on a single companion when all the others have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We were over this, if I recall, with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Potts. You seem to be living in some weird alternate universe where WP:ALLORNOTHING is a legitimate deletion argument, at least in regard to TV characters. Dronebogus (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely different case, given Doctor Who companions are a well-defined subset of Doctor Who characters. They even have their own category! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a completely different case. You’re literally making the exact same argument. Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all my years editing Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever noticed any edict making you the arbiter of which arguments are legitimate and which are not. Care to point me in its direction? If it doesn't exist, I'll stick to my original comment, if it's all the same with you. This is, after all, an AfD, where editors are free to make whatever comment they wish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is acting like “the arbiter of which arguments are legitimate” here except you. Multiple editors have shot down this argument at three of at least four instances of your use of it (here, AfD linked above, and Vislor Turlough) Dronebogus (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While editors are free to make the arguments they wish to make, the arguments are expected to correspond to accepted policy. Repeated arguments that ignore the general consensus can reach the level of WP:IDHT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no accepted consensus on this particular issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Now that secondary sources have been found after all, why not incorporate this into your argumentation as suggested by the neutral party, Liz, here? Daranios (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Now meets W:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As usual, it all comes down to, do available sources, in the article or found in current investigations, establish GNG for this article subject? For good or ill, notability that Keeps an article doesn't lie in the eye of the beholder but in the coverage that can be tracked down about this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who). Fairly minor early character with the slight novelty of being a rare reappearance of a classic companion in the revival. Only one surviving complete story featuring her exists, so I highly doubt any sources exist discussing her in detail. Dronebogus (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: I highly doubt any sources exist discussing her in detail Well, there is at least Ruminations, Peregrinations, and Regenerations, p. 104-110. So I guess it's always better to search for oneself rather than simply speculate. @Pokelego999: Incidentally, that's right the first hit for me when I do the Google Scholar search. Now I wonder if there are more such sources out there... Daranios (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who). No evidence of notability shown in the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: As the current state of the article is not the decisive factor, what about the sources found outside the article? Daranios (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not the decisive factor for deletion at least. I'm not suggesting deletion however, nor do I think this was necessarily a matter to bring to AfD. If the section can be expanded to a sufficient amount, with good enough sources, it can easily be split off again and I have no prejudice towards doing that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note that a redirect is not a merge. Are you suggesting a specific Polly section at Companion (Doctor Who), where no other companion is covered in that way? U-Mos (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason no to for companions that are provably covered somewhere.

I still think the article in its current state is largely plot, so there is not that much point in a merge, but creating a section on her at the target is not out of the question. The article needs significant cleanup and reorganization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Zero sigcov. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, because Polly is a notable character after all: Women in Doctor Who: Damsels, Feminists and Monsters, p. 9, 13-17, is a another secondary source discussing the character. Together with the one mentioned above and multiple secondary sources with shorter mentions of Polly, that's enough to fullfill the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similar if somewhat shorter analysis: Doctor Who: A British Alien?, p. 65. Daranios (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Can you comment on how those sources meet SIGCOV? I think I see it in Ruminations... but I am having trouble finding it in Women... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Women in Dr. Who, p. 9 as a group "female teenagers whose main job appears to be screaining for rescue", in need of babysitting, "disposable companions all playing the same role". P. 13-16 specific: "girl-in-distress", "Polly was the it girl, played by a popular actress", "more conventionally pretty…", relationship with Ben "evoking male fantasy of...", "very much the embodiment of the then-contemporary 1960's...", "refreshingly authentic" for the time, "upbeat", brings in emotion "as the traditional companion's role", another paragraph about the actress' intentions for the character, "good-bye to her is traditionally gender-coded...", contrasted as stronger "damsel" compared to past ages. Daranios (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Sources found by Daranios likely amount to SIGCOV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are divided between those arguing for a Redirection and those stating enough coverage exists to Keep. But there isn't a lot of policy-based argument on either side and stating "I highly doubt that any sources exist" translates to "I didn't look for sources". But that's okay, participants aren't obliged to look for sources but it's not a strong argument to make.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator. I seem to have missed several of these secondary sources during my search, and I now agree with the consensus that coverage for Polly exists. As a result, it seems she definitely is passing GNG/SIGCOV. Not sure if that means anything this late in the game, but I felt that I may as well leave my thoughts regarding the discussion here. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable character with coverage and reliable sources. Companion is a major role in the series.Frond Dishlock (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Many sources exist and she has coverage which can be expanded. If the article is not kept then it should be at the very least Merged with Ben's article (as in they have an article together with a change in the page title). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:14, 17 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 Polly (Doctor Who). There is an approximate consensus here that any coverage in reliable sources relates to the character duo, and covering that material in a single article is appropriate. As the target article has survived AfD, the concerns about merging there seem moot. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jackson (Doctor Who)

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

While he is a companion, his article, as well as Polly's, rely on primary sources, and I can't find any other sources on either him. Thus, he doesn't seem to meet the GNG nor SIGCOV. As he is a classic series companion, there may be reception scattered about here and there, but I'm not sure if there's enough to constitute a whole article. Worst comes to worst, Ben and Polly's articles should be merged given that they come as a duo, but as it stands right now, he should probably just be merged into the Companions article. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) I'm reluctant, but there's limited opportunity for improved secondary coverage given Michael Craze died before Doctor Who home media gathered momentum. Polly (Doctor Who), who Ben never appears without, is there for any minor material. U-Mos (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'm not entirely sure each companion needs an article, I see no value in deleting the article on a single companion when all the others have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, really? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp has started doing this semi-obsessively on fictional character articles. From an experienced user it’d be bad, from an admin it’s borderline trolling. Dronebogus (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF and WP:NPA. You are skating on thin ice here, my friend. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are you Dronebogus (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that this sort of personal attack on any editor who expresses principled dissent has become so commonplace on AFD. Whatever one's opinion on this particular article, the harm done to the encyclopedia by haphazardly deleting arbitrary members of a set is readily apparent. -- Visviva (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who). Fairly minor early character with the slight novelty of being a rare reappearance of a classic companion in the revival. Only one surviving complete story featuring him exists, so I highly doubt any sources exist discussing him in detail. Dronebogus (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless someone rescues this by adding reception/analysis so that it meets GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Polly (Doctor Who) or keep: Ben Jackson is discussed in a number of secondary sources, like [73], [74], and [75], even if not at great length. Commentary on him is often in relation to or pairing with Polly. Daranios (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think merging is a good solution. WP:GNG would now apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm reluctant to Redirect or Merge to Polly (Doctor Who) as this article is also at AFD and it's unclear what the outcome of that discussion will be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Daranios's comment above, secondary sources exist, satisfies, WP:GNG.Frond Dishlock (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Sources exist and he has coverage which can be expanded. If the article is not kept then it should be at the very least Merged with Polly's article (as in they have an article together with a change in the page title). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We could use a review of recently presented sources in this discussion. It would help to hear some policy-based opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator. I've been mostly silent in the discussion thus far (Partially due to being away from my computer for a long time) but I feel now would be a good time to give some thoughts on the discussion.

Taking a look at the sources @Daranios provided, as much as I'd like to keep Ben's article, only the first source seems to be adequate for providing information. Source three really only briefly discusses Ben in terms of plot summary. Source two mostly seems to be plot summary, and focuses on Polly much more than Ben. Maybe I missed something there, as the book is partially paywalled? Still, I don't think it's enough to justify SIGCOV, in this case. I have changed my mind on GNG, but I feel SIGCOV is the real kicker in this conversation. I did another search for sources in case I missed anything, but outside of what Daranios has provided, I can't really find anything that isn't trivial mentions.

As nominator, I will say that I now think it's unwise to merge with Polly's article, as I'm just not sure how Ben would factor into the article, and I'm concerned it would become an example of coatracking. This is especially true as it seems Polly's discussion is leaning towards keep right now, which I very much agree with given the sources presented there. I'm afraid I don't think Ben's article is able to be kept, or able to be merged with Polly, as of right now. Thus, it feels as though a redirect to Companion would be the best option at this point, unless I've missed something with the sources provided. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I'd love to keep Ben's article around. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re the third source there, the Radio Times article. I don't think that's entirely accurate, the analysis of them constituting an 'odd couple' isn't plot summary.Frond Dishlock (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just describing his and Polly's role overall in the series? That's still essentially the equivalent of a basic character overview rather than actually discussing the character himself. Pokelego999 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Is the fact that they are an "odd couple" due to their class difference discussed in the series itself? If not I would say that it is commentary rather than plot summary which would probably be considered original research if not supported by a secondary source. It is also discussed as "evoking male fantasy of..." in source 2, Women in Doctor Who, which compounds it as analysis. It is a comment about the relationship between Ben and Polly and therefore applies in equal parts to both characters. Which then, in case Ben Jackson would not be kept as stand-alone article, could be discussed within Pollys article and then is specifically not coatracking. At the same time it would fit WP:MERGEREASON #3 (although it would be more than "only one or two sentences"). If such a merged article would better be called Polly (Doctor Who) or Polly and Ben Jackson or some such could be decided based on how large a part of analysis refers to both. Daranios (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the arguments you've provided in relation to the sources, then I suppose the best option for Ben would be a merger. Given almost all of Ben's coverage factors directly into his relationship with Polly, it seems beneficial for both articles to merge from what I've seen here. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Polly, otherwise a weak keep. I would agree that only the Frankham-Allen Companions book gets us comfortably over the crucial SIGCOV threshold in that it addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The problem with the plot summaries that seem to make up most of the coverage is that any overall narrative of the character would inevitably be constructed by us. Frankham-Allen has some analysis of the character as a person -- but notably he handles Polly and Ben as a single unit, analyzing Ben in terms of his relationship with Polly. One finds some interesting things here and there, e.g. this book mentions Ben as one of the rare working-class companions. I think it's possible to have a somewhat encyclopedic article here. But overall it seems like we would best fit the available sources by treating Polly and Ben together in one article. -- Visviva (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only one of the books provides SIGCOV. We need more than that. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:23, 28 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 UNIT. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of UNIT personnel

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

Article relies excessively on primary sources and focuses entirely on mostly minor one off characters. While some characters, such as Kate Stewart and Osgood, are recurring and make sense to have some mention on Wikipedia, many of the other characters here just generally lack notability. The contents of this article can probably just be merged with the Doctor Who Supporting Characters article, as well as the main article for UNIT. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis a list article is a more sensible way of recording minor characters in Dr Who. It would be excessive (and wouldn't solve the perceived problem anyway) to merge this with the UNIT article. Sionk (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Light Merge to UNIT - Most of the characters on this list are minor characters that only appeared in a single episode. The actual major, reoccurring characters should certainly be described on the main UNIT article, if they are not already, but the issue of a merge being excessive is not really relevant because most of the the entries on this list should not be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to UNIT per above Dronebogus (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. I'm not a Whovian but the sourcing tends to be reasonably deep on Doctor-Who-as-a-whole, and appendix style spinoff articles are fine on sufficiently notable topics. Lists like this are fine, as long as the sourcing in the main UNIT article supports it. SnowFire (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UNIT#Prominent members of UNIT. It is a list full of minor plotcruft; Wikipedia is not FANDOM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/selective merge per Rorshacma. Most of the entries are unsourced. This is already covered in the main article, in a way that meets Wikipedia standards. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agree with above. NavjotSR (talk) 16:05, 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!} 00:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or selectively merge per above. Would have to leave it to those of greater Whovian expertise to judge how much mergeable content there actually is here. -- Visviva (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge Fails WP:LISTN. The major characters can be merged, the ones who appear in a single episode should not be. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to UNIT per Rorshacma and ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Keep voters fail to provide an argument beyond WP:ITSUSEFUL, sadly, that's not enough and we need to respect WP:LISTN/WP:GNG. See also WP:FANCRUFT. Articles that consist solely of plot summary (and lists) are not very encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 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 merge‎ to Highway 90 (Israel–Palestine) (thanks to Davey2010 for carrying out the merger). ^Complex/_Rational 01:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 West Bank bus crash

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

Fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. The crash received a brief spike of coverage at the time but there is no indication of coverage beyond that, either in the article or in a search for sources, although the latter is complicated by noisy query results. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Palestine. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Highway 90 - there's insufficient material and notability for a standalone page, but Highway 90 is highly notable for its high accident rate [76], and this appears to be currently very underrepresented on that page given its notoriety. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Highway 90, I agree with Spiderone. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Highway 90 as a WP:ATD: the article fails WP:NOTNEWS and does not deserve a standalone article but there is some salvageable information that can be merged there. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Highway 90 - It is notable enough to be included on the H-90 page, however, it does not warrant its own page. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I assume that those suggesting a merge intend for the target to be Highway 90 (Israel–Palestine), not the redirect page Highway 90 (or the associated disambiguation page List of highways numbered 90). --Kinu ^t/_c 19:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge a sentence or two, redirect to Highway 90 (Israel–Palestine)#Accidents. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Highway 90 (Israel–Palestine) - I've merged the content from 2022 West Bank bus crash to Highway 90 (Israel–Palestine). –Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 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 delete‎. I'm not closing this as Draftify as I doubt, after 24 years, more SIGCOV will be found. And as far as Merge, this incident is already over at Adrian Dalsey along with both references. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Guy Broomfield

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

Other than the two sources cited in the article, I am not seeing any coverage of this event. Newspapers.com has zero hits for this event and Google only shows the two in this article. Does not seem to pass WP:EVENTCRIT or WP:NCRIME, as there was nothing enduring about this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - WP:NEVENTS - Notability not yet established, only two sentences that tell us it was a murder, and who committed the crime. Needs more information. I cannot find any sourcing on the web that gives a motive for the murder, or any other information except what is already in the article. After searching Google and the web in general, it's odd that there was not a lot of coverage on this event. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This homicide is not that odd. The second citation explains that the crime was plea-bargained to involuntary manslaughter (3 years), and it was followed by a wrongful death civil suit.[77] Young heir shoots his mother's new boyfriend after an argument, but sustained media interest is not apparent. But for the killer and victim being related to more famous people, the crime would be mundane. • Gene93k (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No long term coverage or consequences. Fails WP:NEVENTS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator's assessment is correct. A rather ordinary crime with a blip of sensation. Convincing evidence of lasting RS interest or impact not found. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Adrian Dalsey#Family, because the main factor of media interest here seems to be the connection with DHL. Deckkohl (talk) 14:42, 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 List of traffic collisions (2000–present)#2022. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Galicia bus crash

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

Fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. The crash received a brief spike of coverage at the time but neither the sources in the article nor a search for other coverage finds any indication that it had lasting notability. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should stay as the accident happened in a country that normally does not get mass casualty incidents like this and when they do should be documented as such
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not have the massive societal ramifications or long-term retrospective coverage necessary to meet WP:NEVENTS. Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively and without prejudice) into List of traffic collisions (2000–present)#2022. Yet another case of bizarre fragmentation! The topic may be notable or not. The answer DOES NOT MATTER as, regardless of the answer, this is an improper WP:SPINOFF from its parent that has just the listing and one short sentence on the accident and could use ALL OF THE SOURCES! gidonb (talk) 20:46, 26 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!} 00:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have continuing coverage through at least March 2023 in national as well as local media. The investigation is apparently still ongoing. It's not clear to me that there is persistent coverage, but it's also not entirely clear that there isn't, or won't be. That said, I don't see any compelling reason not to merge. -- Visviva (talk) 03:19, 16 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!} 00:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Annabella

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

I see nothing that lifts this specific individual hotel up to the standards of WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 00:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not include independent sources, and after spending time researching sources, I have found none showing this property to fill the criteria for notability for WP:NCORP or WP:LOCAL. Additionally there is information about the rooms and geographic location of the property which is not cited.

Editchecker123 (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have the same concerns as those above, which is a shame as I love Balatonfüred. I also fear that Hotel Marina Balatonfüred and Hotel Silverine Lake Resort may have the same issues and may be worth nominating for deletion as well if this one ends up being deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing doesn't pass WP:GNG, there's no GEOLAND argument in its favour, either. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:03, 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.

[1] "Harvard Design Magazine". MIAR: Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals. University of Barcelona. Retrieved 1 January 2025.

[2] "Abhishek Malhan aka Fukra Insaan says he's not threatened by television actors on Bigg Boss OTT 2: 'TV ka zamana gaya'". The Indian Express. 2023-06-23. Retrieved 2023-06-30.

[3] "Bigg Boss OTT 2: "Develop Character, Talent Is Not Everything," Pooja Bhatt Tells Abhishek Malhan". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2023-06-30.

[4] "Bigg Boss OTT 2: Abhishek Malhan, Jiya Shankar and Akanksha Puri nominated for eviction, fans call the show 'biased'". Hindustan Times. 2023-06-28. Retrieved 2023-06-30.

[5] "Berle Sanford Rosenberg". de.wikibrief.org. Retrieved 2023-07-11.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

v t e Men's tennis player seasons: 1998–2009
Roger Federer	Juniors 1998–2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Rafael Nadal	2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Novak Djokovic	2008 2009
Juan Martín del Potro	2009

v t e Men's tennis player seasons: 2010–2019
2010	Federer Nadal Djokovic
2011	Federer Nadal Djokovic
2012	Federer Nadal Djokovic Murray
2013	Federer Nadal Djokovic Murray
2014	Federer Nadal Djokovic Murray Wawrinka Čilić
2015	Federer Nadal Djokovic Murray Wawrinka
2016	Federer Nadal Djokovic Murray Wawrinka
2017	Federer Nadal Djokovic Murray Wawrinka
2018	Federer Nadal Djokovic del Potro
2019	Federer Nadal Djokovic

v t e Men's tennis player seasons: 2020–present
2020	Nadal Djokovic Thiem
2021	Nadal Djokovic Medvedev
2022	Nadal Djokovic Medvedev Alcaraz
2023	Djokovic Medvedev Alcaraz
2024	Djokovic Medvedev Alcaraz Sinner
2025	Medvedev Alcaraz Sinner