Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rosguill (talk | contribs) at 03:47, 10 August 2023 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagat (Street Fighter) (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 01 August 03 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Jeeva

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

Unsourced cinematographer. Only 3 films.

Source analysis:

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

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

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

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

The result was merge‎ to San Jose State University. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San José State Alma Mater

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nate Paul. ✗plicit 01:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Class Capital Group

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment: we have well-sourced article about Nate Paul, World Class's colorful founder and an alleged felon. He's very notable and is at the center of the impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Maybe we just don't need this article, too.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage the paid editors left out: [1][2]
Unfortunately all the details are in the Austin Business Journal article which is behind a paywall. If we keep this article, we'll need sources to update the article for the bankruptcies.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still more: [3][4][5][6]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Nate Paul. Although I suspect WP:NCORP might be satisfied by profiles of Paul (the Forbes article isn't so aggrandizing if you read down to the section starting "when you are") the focus is on him. The article does a good job of laying out his history of oh-so-many real estate developments but that isn't getting the meaty news coverage, just the owner. Oblivy (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Oldfield

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

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

Delete. Luckily the Daily Mail has been removed from this article, as it rightly should be from every article where it does not play a significant role. Even then, how is Oldfield a notable athlete by our standards? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xorcist

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

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

  • Keep Granted, the article is in sad shape and is one that I've got on my list to improve, but the artist meets WP:BAND #5 having multiple releases on 21st Circuitry (a notable indie that was acquired by Metropolis, another notable indie); most of his work under this moniker (and hence coverage) was in the 1990s though he has some releases post-2017, therefore most coverage is not found easily on the web. There may also be opportunity for expansion as Peter Stone to cover his work in video games. -- t_kiehne (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's clear the article meets the criteria for notability (comparable to the Ministry of Sound article). The article definitely needs expansion with more sources, but that by itself is an insufficient reason for deletion, unless we want to delete most of the stub articles across Wikipedia. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Keep, agree with above on WP:BAND#C5. Notability is presumed. We will not lack for a reasonable amount of WP:VERIFIABLE info, as we have a staff-written AllMusic bio [11] which can be relied on for music-related details. —siroχo
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peoria Babylon

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyar Mori Re

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. This is a procedural Keep based on the comments of the discussion participants who are advocating that this bundled nomination be split up into individual AFDs or, at least, smaller bundles of similar groups. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Queensland Debating Society

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. North America1000 09:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Moravsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Calvert

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Editors identified at most one example of significant coverage in a reliable source, falling short of WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 15:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Roos

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

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

  • Hedley, Nick (20 December 2018). "Darren RoosCEO of software company IFS: Quickly through the ranks". Financial Mail. Retrieved 13 July 2023.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Financial Mail is a trade publication with a circulation (according to its Wikipedia page!) of ~19,000. A profile in a trade publication does not make a person notable. Is it a publication of record? Like a major national newspaper or financial newspaper? The trouble with magazines like this one is that they very often take money for publication. Also, it's one article. Is that all it takes to be notable enough to end up with a Wikipedia bio?
Let's remember that Wikipedia is often misused by people as an enhanced LinkedIn. There are providers who sell article generation and maintenance for self-promotion as a service. I think that's what is going on here, and we have a responsibility to fight that kind of misuse. Rhombus (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rhombus, is there a prohibition against reliable trade publications? Is there a requirement that a reliable source be a "publication of record"? Does this publication publish articles for money? If so, why do annual subscriptions cost 1440 Rand ($80 USD). They claim to be a national news site - is this false?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Business Live is the website of Business Day, a long established national daily newspaper, that's a WP:RS and the Financial Mail both founded in 1959. It is NOT a "trade publication", but a well-respected publication with a long pedigree. Park3r (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Park3r Do you have ties to Business Day or the Financial Mail? Rhombus (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not have any ties to either publication. I am familiar with both sources as a reader though. Park3r (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that a source be a "publication of record" - but it's a useful rule of thumb, and I mention it to encourage some thought about what it means for a source to be high-quality.
Paid-subscription publications take money for editorial content all the time, and if anything, this problem is getting worse, not better. This is especially true of trade publications. I don't yet see any evidence that this is a reliable source. The onus should be on the person citing to establish that a source is reliable. Rhombus (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Sharma (police officer)

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

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

Support: Having reviewed the sources when cleaning it up, it doesn't seem like there's much about him. Most of it seems to be passing mentions, still. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The provided sources, which ostensibly show that the subject meets GNG, have not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hyun-sun

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

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. signed, Rosguill talk 03:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hyun-ha

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication any further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Vasilyevich Popov

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

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

Should be enough, but almost certainly more in non-English-language sources as well. —siroχo 20:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo:Are you sure that's our guy? I just don't see anywhere that he is connected with the "Siberian branch of the Soviet Union's Academy of Sciences". I mean, he's from St. Petersburg. Also, I think if he had traveled to the US in the 80's as part of Soviet delegation, it would have been mentioned on the Russian page. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my search I found at least 3 other contemporary people with reasonable coverage with the same first and last name (and English-language sources often do not include the patronymic), so it's possible a couple of these sources describe yet another, but there's a few similarities to the subject of the article. The gaps in degrees from this article lines up with being "distracted" by these related political pursuits at various times. The fact that he studied philosophy and economics seems to line up with the sources I listed. But I am not positive —siroχo 19:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a copy of his CV at St. Petersburg University.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volothamp Geddarm

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Games. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What little we have gives us a decent reception section as a basis for a non-stubby article, thus fullfilling WP:WHYN. The Paste article dedicates 2+ paragraphs to Volo, so that's not a passing mention in my view. I don't see why Arcane should not be considered reliable for its area of expertise, i.e. fantasy. In addition to the present sources, this Giochi per il mio computer article, p. 102, has a paragraph dedicated explicitly to Volo. Sources with shorter commentary are Dungeons & Dragons is changing how it makes books, Volo's Guide to Monsters giveaway, Composing Media Composing Embodiment. Daranios (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arcane was not a long-lived magazine, but as a full-colour glossy that published each month on time and used a stable of good writers and artists, it was respected in the field of fantasy role-playing while it lasted. Its reader poll to determine the best 50 RPGs of all time was a first for the industry, and is still used extensively in other wiki articles. Neither of the reviews in Arcane nor the article in Paste were "passing mentions", and both delved into the reasons for the popularity of Volothamp. I would like to see some of the sources indicated by Daranios incorporated into the article, but even without them, the article is notable. Guinness323 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel the issue here is perhaps that the character themselves is being used where a series article would make more sense. The article itself states "It is through Volo's perspective that Ed Greenwood authored his detailed Forgotten Realms lore-books of the Volo's Guide series". It's possible this could be moved to Volo's Guide and be about the series, mentioning the actual character within the context of that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Although I see what you are saying, at what point does a fictional character become notable enough to have their own article? Guinness323 (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG states that multiple sources of significance are needed. I am unconvinced that Volo is notable based on the sources provided, but I haven't !voted to merge or something because I feel like the series itself is actually notable. Paste Magazine's definitely the biggest, but it entirely talks about him in the context of how the books are from his perspective. Meanwhile, the Polygon article that isn't the giveaway is meatily about Volo's Guide but only tangentially about Volo himself. Therefore I think the best option here is to move it to the Volo's Guide series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care too much either way. I think the commentary of secondary sources on Volo as a literary device would fit equally well into our article here or a Volo's Guides article. The commentary on Volo as a character (like the short sentences in the Polygon articles and the whole content of the Giochi per il mio computer article) fit better into our article dedicated to the character, but could be fitted into a series article as well. It remains that I believe there's enough material for the character to be notable (and too much to conveniently fit into Forgotten Realms#Characters), and the question of how to present that material best is a secondary question, which ideally can be solved outside a deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems to have a lot more real-world significance than most other D&D characters. I'm seeeing some usable coverage in the popular press (e.g., in relation to the recent film) and academic work (e.g., in relation to him as an 'author' of real-world books). Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above comments on available sourcing. BOZ (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I will put my vote in as acknowledging that something about Volo is probably notable - I think it's the series, but that's more of a matter for a move discussion than an AfD, and some manner of page about him should remain on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Taylor (musician)

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

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

The entirety of Career and Biography also appear to be directly lifted from the singers' website, and a quick attempt to find sources only found a very short promotional article on NewarkAdvertiser about an upcoming concert. Delete. MikuFan39 (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Pellett

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

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

If you wanted an actual, you know, rationale, 'Stand clear of the doors please' is really, really not the stuff of WP:GNG. As a Bloomberg anchor, there is no presumed notability and none in RS presented (or evident with a BEFORE) regarding the subject. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that (that it's not the stuff of GNG)? I remember a big fuss being made in the media a few years ago when the person who voiced the "mind the gap" message on the London Underground retired or died or something. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to New Technology Train. I conducted a BEFORE search and only found a few sources about him. They all seem to be related to his announcements for New York City Transit, which are already covered in the NTT article. Besides that, Pellett unfortunately has no standalone notability. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems ok to me Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the NY Post, its RSP entry states that there is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics..., but it excepts sports reporting. My reading is that in this case, as it's neither politics or sports reporting, it is still generally unreliable. Hence, unless I am missing something, I'm not sure where you got that there's "no consensus" on RSP. (However, I have no strong opinion on the NY Press source and am not making a !vote now.) Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. The justification to delete speaks about the article being sourced only to something written by his employer. But searches indicate there is news reporting about his voice work, which is described as one of the most famous voices in New York. Independent reporting about his work is what the nominator said was needed. I think arguably, he meets WP:CREATIVE criterion 4c, but less arguably the justification to delete is incorrect, a searches as per WP:BEFORE identify more sources than are discussed in the nomination.
  1. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-most-recognizable-voice-in-new-york
  2. https://abc7ny.com/molly-clark-comedian-subway-tiktok/7220253/
  3. https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/sweet-spot-voice-of-the-subway/
CT55555(talk) 02:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the subject meets WP:Notability. Let's analyze these three sources and see if they meet the GNG. Here is a source assessment table:
Source assessment table prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
New Yorker
Yes Independent media.
Yes New Yorker meets journalistic standards
Yes Enough to be significant. ✔ Yes
ABC
Yes Independent media.
Yes ABC meets journalistic standards
Yes Enough to be significant. ✔ Yes
CBS
Yes Independent media.
Yes CBS meets journalistic standards
Yes Enough to be significant. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: I don't think the CBS source has significant coverage as a passing mention, but I agree that the other two sources count toward GNG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Significant for sure. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. North America1000 09:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Holidays (Meghan Trainor featuring Earth, Wind & Fire song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Delete, never charted and no coverage outside of the one performance. I was looking into NBC, they don't own the record label she sings for, Sony does. It's not cross promotion having her on the show, so less of a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Very Trainor Christmas. Little to no coverage about the song outside of album reviews. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG, so NSONG is not necessary. Note that I saw this page creation in the new pages feed and reviewed it. When the nominating user changed the page to a redirect, I figured I'd put the investigation I did during the new page review to use to add sources and restore the page. I found:
    • There's approximately 100 words of SIGCOV dedicated to the song, published 2 years after the song, in a biography of the band Earth Wind & Fire, published by University Press of Mississippi, titled Do You Remember? Celebrating Fifty Years of Earth, Wind & Fire
  • There are probably a 100 of the band's songs covered in the biography, it does not impart individual notability to all of them as this does not constitute standalone coverage. The one line about how "the song embodies EWF's classic sound, with pulsating horns and a funky bassline" can be extremely comfortably accomodated on the album article.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because an independent, reliable source covers a 100 of a band's songs does not prevent it from imparting notability from a particular song if the coverage of that song is significant enough. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hollywood Life article is about 150 words of SIGCOV of various aspects of a performance (with further coverage of the album, not counted in the word count)
  • The Hollywood Life is a pathetic and unreliable tabloid imo that should never be used as a source. Shocklingly, one user at RSN considered it reliable but even that discussion seems to have concluded it should not be used to gauge notability.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Today.com article is a few hundred words of SIGCOV addressing visual aspects of different performances of the song, including a music video, and does seem to be independent of the subject of the article (the song).
I did encounter other short coverage beyond trivial that I didn't reference in the article. —siroχo 18:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have already covered why the Today source does not count as a secondary source for the purposes of notability, for their coverage of a performance on another NBC show.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that Today does not count as a secondary source for this song. The song is not owned by NBC and so Today is a secondary source with respect to coverage of the song. Rlendog (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well Holidays was of course released as a single, a fact that's firstly been verified and corroborated via Meghan Trainor - Holidays, the song's music video. What's this has been further substantiated via People https://people.com/music/meghan-trainor-releases-holiday-music-video-earth-wind-fire/, Entertainment Tonight, https://etcanada.com/news/716993/meghan-trainor-gets-festive-for-holidays-music-video/ and Page six https://pagesix.com/2020/12/03/earth-wind-fire-singer-says-band-doesnt-have-groupies-anymore/. Song is also notable having over 4.4 million views on YouTube whilst being critically acclaimed by GQ https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/christmas-songs-2020-ranked, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution https://www.ajc.com/life/music-blog/music-notes-this-year-we-need-a-little-christmas-music-more-than-ever/C3ZPP5XPMVEI7DQREJKRRZGRBQ/, The Spokesman-Review https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/nov/26/its-dolly-parton-carrie-underwood-meghan-trainor-l/ and AllMusic https://www.allmusic.com/album/a-very-trainor-christmas-mw0003422402.
Holidays is undoubtedly in accord with Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and what not. Certainly the song and article should be continually maintained in soing to offer an illustration of such notability. Scriber88 (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of the charts you have mentioned are "national or significant music or sales charts". They are component charts which could do with a mention on the album article. Also see WP:NOTINHERITED for arguments to avoid during a deletion discussion.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One of the keep votes above is the creator of the article and the other "restored" it before this AfD. The pile-on keep votes with flawed arguments should be weighted accordingly.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan, I think it's predictable that an article creator would arguing for keeping an article they created in a deletion discussion. But they can participate in AFDs just like any editor. I don't see that their work on an article discounts the argument they are making in a discussion. I disagree when in some other AFDs an article creator's comments are tagged as if that means they are less important than other people's opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. North America1000 09:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maarten van der Duin

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

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

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

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

  • Delete until and unless better sourcing can be found. None of his awards appear to be "well-known and significant" which is a higher level than notability. The current sourcing is insufficient to support any article much less a WP:BLP. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found some passing mentions in books and surprisingly little in the press. He contributed to media units that were nominated and/or awarded prizes. That is nice yet unless the director, just maybe the producer, does not count toward notability. It mostly counts toward the unit's notability. If the award is more specific to the domain of that person (e.g. for the screenplay or special effects) we should again consider it. Also the GNG would still need to be met. gidonb (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet the following criterion (3) for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To your opinion, does he also pass the WP:GNG? gidonb (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know but he seems to be notable as screenwriter. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, retitle, and reframe‎ as an article about the place. The argument that there is an inhabited place with a related name that would meet GEOLAND has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonbarsa Raj

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

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

  • Comment: to make things confusing, there's a town by this name, too.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. Good point. I'm thinking along the lines of whether this article could be kept as part of the history of the village/town, if it can be reliably established the two are linked. Rupples (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Rowing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed pair. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Abe (rower)

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Alejandro Brugués. I'm closing this as a Redirect, editors can take it from there. Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Inheritance (upcoming film)

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

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

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft I'm not opposed to drafting the article. @Mushy Yank: I'm not sure how much "attracted attention" you're talking about? I mean a few websites reported that Netflix cancelled two completed films (this being one of them). No reason why and no plan to sell to other distributors were disclosed. If nothing comes out of it, we can always add a sentence about the unreleased film on the actor's pages.Mike Allen 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How much? Well, roughly 100 articles (in various languages) come out when you google '"The Inheritance" Brugués Netflix -wikipedia" (sites of various quality, obviously). Some sources on the page deal with the production, other sources with Netflix's decision. As to why Netflix decided to "drop" the film, this source in French said it was to sell it)). Many sources insist filming has been completed (there's another Inheritance film on Netflix, though, so it takes time to explore). Redirect could be OK but keeping the article because the film failed to be released so far and that it attracted "some" attention (notable failure being the/one reason to consider an unreleased film notable, as you know) would not shock me either. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but a bit of a complex one. Redirect to the newly created director page Alejandro Brugués, and then move without leaving a redirect to The Inheritance (unreleased film). The move should be done per WP:UFILM to prevent keeping a misleading redirect per WP:R#D2. If a release ever comes, it can be moved to the proper dab for its release year for restoration at that point. Redirect seems better than Drafting in this case (in my opinion) because if it never finds a release, it will end up G13 deleted. -2pou (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In situ electron microscopy

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Essentially an WP:OR topic name. UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Traditionally, electron microscopes examine samples in stable configurations, after careful preparation. The article is specifically about imaging with an electron microscope in a dynamic environment, like while an experiment is taking place. The topic has significant coverage separate from electron microscopy in general, see review article book1 book2 conference. I agree the article does not introduce the subject very clearly at the moment, but the topic has enough coverage that I think it can be improved. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 03:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Forbes72 Environmental scanning electron microscope is a good example of what are you trying to say when talking about developing a microscopy for a specific test. and - quoting the review article that you mentioned - "The recent advances in in situ methods, including liquid and gas sample environment, pump-probe ultrafast microscopy, nanomechanics and ferroelectric domain switching the aberration corrected electron optics as well as fast electron detector has opened new opportunities to extend the impact of in situ TEM in broad areas of research ranging from materials science to chemistry, physics and biology. In this article, we highlight the development of liquid environment electron microscopy .. (PS: I linked the developed EMs)
    to expand on the example, the environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) is an example of in situ microscopy, specifically for studying samples in their natural or hydrated states. Traditional electron microscopes typically require samples to be in a vacuum, which can alter or damage certain materials or biological specimens. However, ESEM allows for imaging samples in a controlled environment with variable pressure, enabling observation of materials and biological samples without extensive sample preparation.
    thus, "in situ microscopy" as a thing does not exist but developing instruments to allow for in situ testing exits. the article is about the first
    The article should not exists the same way that an article about "Operando X-ray" should not. Cheers .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Environmental scanning electron microscope article does indeed mention in situ techniques. Along these lines, I guess you could try and merge all the in situ information into the individual articles for specific kinds of electron microscopes, as you seem to suggest. But since "in situ electron microscopy" is addressed as the main topic of secondary scholarly sources, having a similarly scoped article on Wikipedia mentioning the applications of in situ measurements for individual microscopes (TEM, ESEM etc.) is not just a a neologism. A singular "in situ electron microscope" might not exist as a distinct physical object, but I don't think that's a good reason to delete an article, since we have plenty of Wikipedia articles about scientific techniques. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 14:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Quantity of sources is not relevant. Quality, with regard to WP:42 is. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dianelis Carbonell

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The main points of contention are whether the NYT coverage is significant and whether the TechCrunch article is independent. This is ultimately down to subjective judgment, and since all of the discussion is policy-based, we look to the numerical tally which is slightly in favor of keeping but not quite enough to declare a consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KumoSpace

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Relevant guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and none of the references meet it. The NYT piece is close but the company is not the main focus of the article. Everything else is routine coverage such as funding announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in accordance with WP:GNG standards, the page meets the notability criteria as it primarily discusses the software, rather than the company. Specifically, the sources discuss the software. The New York Times piece, while not entirely focused on the company, is rather huge and gives in-depth coverage of the software and its influence on the virtual office software industry. I found several books with good descriptions of the software and added one review in a new section. Furthermore, I've integrated several credible sources in other languages, such as Chinese from 36kr.com, as well as numerous academic papers that explore the software's impact on student studies, business workflows, and more. As such, the page meets the basic notability requirements and could be restructured to resemble a software-centric entry more closely. --BoraVoro (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article is not about the company or the software. It is about virtual meetings and discusses the company and software in context with several other companies. Neither the software or the company are the main focus of the article so it would not meet ORGCRIT. "Descriptions" of the software in other sources fall short as well. It would be the same as considering a company directory listing (Crunchbase, Bloomberg, etc.) for notability. Are you able to point out any specific references other than these you feel meet ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added 2 more sources to the page, a review from a book and some academia papers where Kumospace is the subject. I recognize that nuances around guidelines and what may or may not meet specific criteria can be tricky. I've tried my best to address the notability concerns, I believe a third-party evaluation will provide clarity. Thank you! BoraVoro (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with reservations. First of all, the very lengthy New York Times magazine piece does not make the company the focus but it does talk a lot about the company. The article is about why people need something like KumoSpace. Common sense says it counts. Read it for yourself.
There's a TechCrunch article about KumoSpace; our WP:RSNP note on TechCrunch warns about variability in the reliability of their articles: see WP:TECHCRUNCH. I read the article; it's by a named staff reporter and I judge it to be independent. Nominally, it's about raising money but primarily it's about KumoSpace and what they're doing.
There are citations to journal articles about using KumoSpace in the classroom -- I'm not sure how they fit into our WP:NCORP scheme.
My reservation is that by tech standards, this is a small company in a very big space; they raised $21 million in financing. The tech giants have more coins than that just in their sofas. A personal beef I have with WP:NCORP is that ignores size in favor of meeting some very specific citation requirements. We end up with articles about dive bars in Saskatoon because people wrote interesting profile pieces about them. We coverage of Fortune 500 companies because when they fire 1000 people, takeover a competitor or earn $1 billion, it's "routine." Ultimately my !vote is about the rules, not my personal preferences so KumoSpace is a keep.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the NYT article and TechCrunch article. I believe you are saying you have an issue with NCORP which is understandable as I often have an internal conflict with it myself (I think we raised the bar high to keep out spam and wound up keeping out some good companies as a result). Unfortunately, the guideline is what it is and would need to be changed before it can be applied as such (lower standards than currently written). Regardless, let's assume that the NYT and TechCrunch meet ORGCRIT. If that is the case, I don't feel that both together would be strong enough for NCORP. If two sources similar to these could meet NCORP, we could have thousands more articles on companies that otherwise would not qualify. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the NYT, along with other US and foreign articles, provides significant coverage of KumoSpace, illustrating its relevance among virtual meetings industry. It's notable for a software that academic references emphasize its impact in the educational sector. I'd rather strongly agree with the above arguments of notability and believe the article is more about a software. In this context, and given its diverse references, it meets the general notability criteria. --Emma so Bergst222 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me specifically which "other US and foreign articles" meet the criteria spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material" - Then how would it meet WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have to use our judgement rather than strictly follow imperfect guidelines blindly. - Indefensible (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is concerning. We use our judgment comparing guidelines to available sources to see if they meet those guidelines. We cannot simply vote contrary to those guidelines because we feel they are "imperfect." That is circumventing Wikipedia guidelines. WP:IDLI would apply here and should be avoided. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging your concern, however I stand by my comment. As I previously wrote in regards to a political article, having a single quote (for example) should not be enough to invalidate an entire article on the basis of being primary. This coverage from MIT's Tech Review is additional to NYTimes' article which is also discussed by others above (I am merely in agreement with A. B. upon reviewing it), and other sources. Plus the considerable foreign sources add support for notability. - Indefensible (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, you are standing behind your comment to not follow a guideline you feel is imperfect? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am standing by my comments above, particularly the original review where I supported keeping the article. - Indefensible (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • I struggle to see how the NYT article could possibly be used to support any coverage-based criteria for evaluating N, given that it hardly has any information about KumoSpace, much less "directly and in detail". The TechCrunch article, on the other hand, is for the most part "Martin says", "Martin posits", "Martin stresses", "Martin argues". Martin being Brett Martin, co-founder and president of the company, it is unclear how we should consider it independent. E-Palli is not listed as a predatory publisher, but there are indications that suggest that it dubious. I am not convinced that any of its journals should be considered RS, and I am not aware of its inclusion in relevant indicies. In any case, despite being independent, it is most certainly also WP:PRIMARY, both of which are required in SIRS. I can't find a basis for lower standards for software as put forward by BoraVoro and Old-AgedKid (the WP:NSOFT essay notably directs us to WP:NPRODUCT for commercial software) and the general notability guideline is actually quite similar, if not quite so explicit about the required depth to be considered significant (understandably so, since the primary criteria of the SNGs were how it was originally formulated. I don't see an argument for retention that aligns with the relevant guidelines, so I will have to recommend a delete. (edit conflict) yeah probably my fault for taking so long but y'all could leave some of this stuff in OAFD for like a day or so, grumble grumble Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The combination of substantial NYT coverage, a TechCrunch feature, and multiple other independent sources makes this a clear keep in my view. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WilsonP NYC:, based on your limited participation on Wikipedia, I am wondering if you could expand on how NYT, TechCrunch, and (multiple) other sources meet WP:SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Techcrunch, in the form of actual bylined editorial articles (versus Crunchbase and so on) is a significant source of original reporting on technology companies and (despite many objections to the boosterish tone in this discussion and elsewhere) is usually considered the main source of news on technology companies. The feature there is significant, independent, reliable and secondary.
A major NYT Magazine feature obviously meets all four criteria, the NYT magazine is one if the most high profile sources in the English language. Thus the argument taking place here is if the subject's inclusion in this feature is a passing mention or a significant part of the article. My judgement is that it's significant, but it's certainly arguable.
The combination of those two, plus other credible citations, meets notability in my view. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There seems to be confusion about SIRS. While TechCrunch is a reliable source, the one cited is a routine announcement of funding with churnalism. For New York Times, this is not about KumoSpace. It talks about it in briefly in context with virtual meetings so it fails SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'd prefer to keep it. I enjoyed the interesting discussion and do see the issues with "multiple reliable sources", and an argument that some non-fiction books describe the software. I also cannot say that the New York Times newspaper merely mentions it briefly. Their media coverage is comprehensive enough to write a short, neutral article about kumospace on Wikipedia, if to apply such a verification method. However, that's not my point. I was surprised to find out that kumospace is already a part of several university courses (Queen's University Belfast, Queen Mary University of London) on "Profile Building/Networking". Specifically, an entire session is dedicated to kumospace software, while Cambridge University uses kumospace for teaching its Networking course. This, in itself, speaks to its notability. Mozzcircuit (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Cuban football players who have defected to the United States. Liz Read! Talk! 18:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Riquelme

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

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

Redirect to List of Cuban football players who have defected to the United States.--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ollancy Arrebato

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Robinsons Malls#Philippines. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsons Pangasinan

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yesmi Rodríguez

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guatemala women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mariandre Rodas

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 18:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole Djekruassem

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appolinaire Djingabeye

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary German

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

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

  • Delete. Appears to only have the one novel out and I can find no coverage of this author in the last decade. There is a single review of his novel in Publishers Weekly (link) plus the Vice documentary, but by itself that's not enough to prove he meets notability guidelines. That said, he's still a young author so this article may simply be a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. If he publishes more works and receives corresponding coverage proving notability, we can always recreate the article. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GeoAccess

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. While meeting GEOLAND is generally sufficient for keeping an article, we do require evidence in the form of reliable sources that the topic is in fact a legally recognized settlement: that seems to be missing here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enkhali

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

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

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

  • Keep It may "feel" non-notable, but it clearly passes WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place, which is one of our lowest notability standards, and for good reason. Problem is, it's in Sector 6 per the census, and there's not a lot more we can say about it that I can find - the deletion rationale isn't invalid. Since the creator has been blocked I don't really care if this is deleted - just want to note that whatever happens, anyone who wants to re-create this article would be doing so on a topic we've deemed notable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It not only "feels" non-notable, it "IS" non-notable. It's claimed to be in the middle of the totally, utterly unpopulated area between Awir and Lahbab - it's a desert. It's not a village or a community or a recognised place - it's desert. Seriously, dunes and camel camps. Desert. I quite often drive past there. There's not even a signpost off the E44 to mark 'Enkhali' - it's not even searchable on Google maps. It's all sandy and deserty and, well, deserted. It has no houses. Nada. Zero. Zilch. It's as unpopulated as it's possible to be these days in Dubai, the emirate. Nobody's deemed it notable for anything - it's a wholly unpopulated place. It's the Norwegian Blue of populated places, nailed to its perch - in the desert. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. It's a populated, legally recognised place. Is it worth keeping as this stub? Probably not, but I have no problem if anyone wants to re-create this if there's anything else we can say about it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You remember the great John Carter train crash? My run of >150 UAE AfDs? This user was on the way to creating another one, having got hold of a PDF from Dubai Municipality and then creating articles about 'places' he found in there. Whatever, wherever 'Enkhali' is supposed to be, it's not a village or populated place and its existence isn't supported by any RS. Between Awir and Lahbab there is literally nothing bar a palace - with the vast majority of the land to that side of the road between Awir and Lahbab cordoned off around that palace - and some civil infrastructure - there's a place name Nakhali (a concrete plant named for it) just as you get to Lahbab, arguably subsumed by the expansion of Lahbab. Anyway, that's me - as always with appreciation for your concerns re: GEOLAND (I have saved many a place at AfD having gleefully nicked your arguments! ;) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Question. @Alexandermcnabb: Is there a list of political subdivisions published by the government that we can refer to? In some Canadian provinces, for example, an area too sparsely populated to have a municipal government is called a "local improvement district"? It would be nice to know how the Dubai government characterizes Enkhali. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator who knows this place. Or rather, knows this place's non-notability. Desolate, God-forsaken, lifeless places like this serve a vital role: they help hold the Earth together. In this part of the world, that's all some places are able to do. It's a noble and essential task; if just one of them let go, the Earth's crust might begin failing; Alexander would be among the first to go. So credit is due them. Just not articles without reliable sources.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over dozens of AFDs tonight, most of them irresolvably divided between Keepers/Deleters, I needed a laugh, thanks, A. B.. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This thing smells of fraud. There is a reference to it in the census document, but it's striking that the reference is used only to justify the area of this place (whatever it is), with the population of two and the population density of zero conveniently tucked into the infobox. Meanwhile, the original source of the image of the camel does not mention this place or for that matter any other place other than "unnamed road", and there's no source given for the location of this place. Given that it was created by someone with a history of such frauds, I have to wonder why anyone is defending it. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangoe:
    SportingFlyer -- a very experienced editor, editing in good faith. I trust them 100%, ethics-wise. I suspect that if they ever did decide go to the dark side, it wouldn't be on behalf of a place like this.
    Jad Krimeed -- the article's creator was a problem and is now indefinitely blocked.
    The Camel -- the camel wandered away.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just interpreting our policy very literally - it's a legally recognised place, so it's technically eligible for an article. Whether this is a good or bad thing is left as an exercise to the reader. SportingFlyer T·C 22:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's more like you are interpreting the one official source literally, which our experience with GNS and GNIS and the Iranian census leads me to reject. That one word in a column heading is not good enough; even were it not a translation I would doubt it. Look, two people is a community only in the most mathematically reductive sense, and even then I have to assume they live in two separate houses. Also, it's only a guideline anyway, but in any case the history of these discussions is that we have required more evidence of a settlement than a tag or column heading in a government listing. Mangoe (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flutlicht

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab University Law College

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

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

What could I do to prevent it from deletion? It was created Specifically as an Alumni page but I can make it a descriptional page of that college if that would prevent it from deletion. Dawood Ch 471 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it can. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've stubified the article and I'm confident that more sources can be developed beyond the few I've used. Jahaza (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
    - The article now has some sources. Though needs improvement.
    - @ ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact), can you confirm you followed WP:BEFORE and did search for potential sources and failed to find any.
    - Note as per WP:N: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any."
    - I would find it very odd that there are not many adequate sources for the law school that seems to have produced the most prominant lawyers in a country. Jagmanst (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article certainly needs rewriting and trimming, but the topic is notable per WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Need some formating but Notable.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep this article. I don't understand Why nominate this article for deletion?--Fahads1982 (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ikot Mkpang

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

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

  • Delete: at first glance, this looks very non-notable on a satellite image (assuming Google went to the right place)
This brings back painful memories of a very long contentious AfD about a similar uninhabited place on the map in Nigeria:
It didn't help that there was some involvement with a troll group.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's our List of villages in Cross River State article. There is an "Ikot Mkpang Esighi" village listed in Bakassi, however that district is much further away from Calabar and now part of Cameroon. There's no other "Ikot Mkpang" on the list.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal Knowledge Core

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Seich

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phillippa Williamson

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

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

Probably delete. Plenty of news about her in the various local Lancashire newspapers, but nothing nationally that I can find. Qcne (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. County council is not a level of government that guarantees "inherent" notability per WP:NPOL — the notability test for a county councillor is not "she exists", but "her work on the county council has been externally analyzed by reliable sources to a depth and degree that would make her a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for county councillors". But that's not what's being shown here, as the article is just written like a résumé, says nothing to suggest any reason why anybody outside of Lancashire needs to know about her, and is based almost entirely on primary sources rather than WP:GNG-building coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Companion (Doctor Who). Liz Read! Talk! 17:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Jones (Doctor Who)

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

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

  • Redirect to the list of Dr Who companions (characters). No reception, the article is just a plot summary with a list of media that character appeared in, thus failing WP:GNG as written.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Companion (Doctor Who). (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fey Truscott-Sade

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

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

Comment: @Pokelego999: Can you explain why you withdrew your first AfD on this subject? Let'srun (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Long story short, I nominated too many AfDs at once when I first nominated this, alongside many other articles. I ended up withdrawing many that hadn't been replied to as a result. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Eppy

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Dobert

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bernard Baars. ✗plicit 00:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Consciousness Review

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

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

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

Delete no sourcing found, defunct website. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few mentions in Gscholar, confirming existence but nothing for GNG. [24] Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Bernard Baars, which already mentions the Review on his article as the founding editor. Let'srun (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no in-depth coverage, not even brief coverage. Not notable
FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep — nomination withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Kotlarsky

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

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

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full professors are not notable for holding that academic rank (see WP:Prof), but this one is notable for other reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Full professors in New Zealand are considered notable. Schwede66 11:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Holy Trinity Church, Benaulim incident

2023 Holy Trinity Church, Benaulim incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: After some consideration, I have now removed the 'Media opinion' section commented on above from the article - regardless of the outcome of this AfD, such blatant editorialising doesn't remotely belong in article space. I have also removed a section entitled 'Media coverage' which entirely lacked any source actually discussing such coverage, and appears to serve no purpose beyond making the incident look more significant than it is -violating WP:NPOV along with other policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How much incidents relating between parishioners and the parish priest which has led to a resignation have been reported, especially in this small state of Goa with significant amount of Christians? I find this subject pass the notability criteria mainly because it's not a an "average" dispute, which possibly you're talking about. The priest has lost his position in the church and possibly won't every be assigned in any church. Not to forget Fr Rodrigues has been mentioned several times in local news publications. Apart this, its not the first the parishioners of Benaulim church or particularly this church has been in news. There are reports as early as early 2000s, see [25] involving the priest in charge. The article is singularly uninformative as to what exactly this 'dispute' was actually about, see second paragraph of the lead. it is mentioned that Parishioners accused the priest of making administrative decisions without consulting them, and of ignoring their opinions and concerns about the practices and services in the church. The situation reached a breaking point when some parishioners, who were allegedly close to the priest, filed police complaints against certain individuals. Rejoy2003(talk) 19:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An unrelated incident involving another priest 22 years ago does absolutely nothing to increase the notability of this incident. As for the rest, I stand by what I wrote: the article doesn't tell us what it is the dispute was even about, in any real detail. And no, the lack of coverage for other events doesn't bestow notability on this one, either. WP:N doesn't work like that. Not even remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by the article article doesn't tell us what it is the dispute was even about? Not to forget that I was still working on the article, like I said the above statement was from The Times of India in the English language. You can also see a better detailed information about the matter on two news publications, The Prudent Media [26] and Dainik Gomantak [27]. Do note that the above two news links are mostly in the Konkani language and a Non-Konkani editor will find it difficult to comprehend what's even going on. Rejoy2003(talk) 20:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be easier to comprehend what was going on if you had made some effort to tell us. What 'administrative decisions' were the parishioners upset about? Which 'opinions' of theirs do they claim were being ignored? What was it about the 'practices and services in the church' that they took issue with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would had be pleased to comprehend the issue only if I had got more time then taking this to the AFD. Leaving that aside, I've made a breakdown about the Dainik Gomantak video source, I don't think this will answer all your questions but to summarise what the concerned person told in the video was; The letter was issued because the parishioners did not want Fr. Rodrigues since they did not understand him. The things he preached were not done properly, the Bible readings were not read properly, and the practices and services (mass liturgy, etc) of the church were not conducted properly. In addition, there were other issues that the parishioners wrote down to the Bishop. The concerned parishioner further claimed that his actions were tarnishing the Christian religion, which is why the parishioners of Benaulim do not visit their own parish church, but instead go to neighboring churches to attend their services. According to Prudent Media's livestream, it was difficult to interpret what the locals were saying due to the sheer number of people present. Towards the end of the video, all that could be understood was that they alleged the parish priest had embezzled funds from the church, (mainly donations, etc.) and called him names. Also do note that most of the issues or answers to your questions are undisclosed by the government officials, locals or journalists involved. I can provide more details from Twitter but they aren't written down by experts rather individual persons, hence they're not reliable and won't provide proper weightage to this discussion. Rejoy2003(talk) 03:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, India, and Goa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and perhaps TOOSOON as well. If people are still talking about this in a year maybe it could be made into a shortened, simplified article, so I would be ok with draftifying it as a second option. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What according to WP:NOTNEWS you disagree of? WP:TOOSOON usually points out issues with "independent reliable sources". Check the article again, it has sources from different media publications from Goa. Also see my reply above to AndyTheGrump, I've mentioned The Prudent Media and Dainik Gomantak but you'll have to learn a different language for that unless you're a Goan. Maybe it could be made into a shortened, simplified article what do you mean shortened article? When the article can be as lengthy as this one, since I've been WP:BOLD about it. People were already talking about it in June, you can see Tweets, Facebook posts and even YouTube videos see [28] [29] [30]
    [31] there's also another public opinion in The Navhind Times see [32]. Yet the Cardinal had also issued this statement after witnessing the incident at Benaulim, see here [33] which gives an insight on how much efforts have been made to hush up the issues that happened at a village, which is also tourist destination. I believe we should be WP:BOLD about it and let the people know and educate about things happening in the state of Goa. I haven't added YouTube videos to references in the article since they're not from news publications. Rejoy2003(talk) 06:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AndyTheGrump and WP:NOTNEWS as it provides nothing of consequence to indicate notability and it does not have Lasting impact.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How it doesn't have a lasting effect? Per WP:LASTING, Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. read the article title from The Goan Everyday which says Action at Benaulim Church sets a horrible precedent. see [34] To provide a general overview to you, As far as I've known and looked up on the internet, the state of Goa has never had a protest with hundreds of parishioners demanding action against a priest which resulted in his resignation from the church, the demand was first requested over months ago. This can be a possibile catalyst to unknown events in the forthcoming years the state has to witness. Rejoy2003(talk) 19:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTALBALL "Wikipedia does not predict the future". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ready to take my statment back, but still doesn't tackle the fact that it passes WP:LASTING. Rejoy2003(talk) 19:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you possibly assert that? The events only happened a couple of months ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't claimed that an Action at Benaulim Church has a horrible precedent. There's an article written about it, maybe you could go through it. Rejoy2003(talk) 19:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's an editorial. Speculation about things that might happen. If and when they do, and if and when they get significant coverage, we can write an article about them. Until then, we aren't obliged to report what anonymous journalists see in their crystal balls. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be more careful with the word "speculation". They have referred the Benaulim incident a couple of times, quote The Benaulim incident is a grim reminder that the 'golden phase of silence' may end sooner, and protests could be the way forward, even at churches. This gives us an insight on how much serious this incident is, I'm not sure whether the editors who have supported for delete in this AFD have even gone through references? The journalist has also put forth related incidents yet the Benaulim incident stands out, like the article title is suggested. The topic has already been received significant coverage from the local media publications (excluding those that are written and difficult to find in Devnagari). It has also involved notable persons like the Cardinal and Archdiocese of Goa and Daman Filipe Neri Ferrão as well. "We can write an article about them", I can vouch you that no one will come forward and write on topic such as these. Wikiprojects Goa itself has less participants, I don't expect anyone doing this. Rejoy2003(talk) 22:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason to be careful about the word 'speculation', since I was using it to describe an anonymous editorial you linked which was doing exactly that. Anyway, beyond suggesting you add WP:NOTINHERITED to the things you need to read up on, I think we are probably done here. I have expressed my opinion (based on many years as a Wikipedia contributor and participant in deletion discussions) on the notability of this 'incident'. You have expressed yours. We should probably leave the discussion to other contributors. Appropriate projects have been notified, and I'm sure there will be further input. This isn't an argument between the two of us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that this argument is definitely not between us. It's only that I've worked on this article almost a week, spending hours and now it has come to this. Not that I didn't expect it, but I knew atleast some editor will definitely have a problem. I don't agree with the WP:NOTINHERITED part, but I'm definitely an Inclusionist. I'll leave this to the other contributors, but to your another claim of "anonymous editor", I wish you had done more digging. The editor of The Goan Everyday, is Joel Afonso from Goa News Network (GNN) see here [35]. Rejoy2003(talk) 05:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a group of parishioners angrily demanding their priest resign is about as WP:NOTNEWS as it gets. If it were a significant church then perhaps this incident could be a short blurb in the church's article, but it isn't. The incident doesn't seem to have even garnered much coverage in the local media. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. This would be WP:UNDUE as even a sentence at Benaulim, and there is no more local article with which it could be considered for a merge. I also think the mention is rather undue at the only place it's linked from, Timeline of Goan history (although it's not the only bit of trivia there). Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even as an inclusionist, I see nothing of value or notability here. It fails pretty much every test: Not news, currently non-notable, too soon to tell if there will ever be notability, a '4' on event criteria, lacking significant coverage, lacking persistent coverage, lacking coverage outside the area. I feel for the editor who invested so much time here, but it's just not a Wikipedia article. It's vaguely interesting, but entirely local. If it turns out to have lasting consequences (I don't see how, but my precognition is acting up), we can recreate the article in a decade or so. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paruchuri

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

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

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Nick Fury#Ultimate Marvel. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fury (Ultimate Marvel character)

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

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. The nominator is not allowed to participate in deletion discussions relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan as a non-EC editor per WP:GS/AA. I have separately, further blocked them as an arbitration enforcement measure for repeated violations of this rule. I did, however, look into their specific claims regarding this article's sourcing to establish whether the nomination is tendentious in toto or just de jure: while I did not look long enough to verify that GNG was met, I was able to quickly find coverage of the battle on Google Scholar in Turkish [1]and in French ([36]), suggesting a lack of proper WP:BEFORE and a basis for indefinite banning from AA. signed, Rosguill talk 14:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Halidzor

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

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

References

  1. ^ Bozkuş, Yıldız Deveci. "Ermeni tarih ders kitaplarında Türk imgesi." Yeni Türkiye 60 (2014): 2014. (Accessible as PDF from Google Scholar)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Moxila A. Upadhyaya

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

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

Given that this is the first former president to face federal criminal charges, any judges involved in the process are ipso facto notable, administratively or otherwise. Furthermore, the future is unwritten. Today is August 2; the arraignment is tomorrow. Give it a day. kencf0618 (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. ANY Judge involved in the possible conviction of Trump will be considered noteworthy to future historians. DO NOT DELETE. Deadvoodoo (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The relevant notability criteria is here (for US judges). The individual is not de facto notable, but could still be notable. I'm pretty WP:MEH on keep vs. delete. Maybe their role in the Trump stuff is notable, maybe it's WP:TOOSOON. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nom is correct that magistrate judges are not automatically notable, even if they are involved in a high-profile case. She is handling some procedural components before the district judge takes over, and unless there are independent sources about Upadhyaya herself, there is no basis for notability. A claim of "ipso facto notable" is false and has no basis in our guidelines. Reywas92Talk 13:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Gujarat, and Missouri. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - recent independent and reliable coverage is limited, e.g. "Trump will make his first court appearance on Thursday before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya. Such judges handle initial matters in federal cases." (ABC News); "NBC News reports that Trump will travel to Washington, D.C., on Thursday to be arraigned in U.S. District Court before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya." (New York); "Trump won’t be placed under arrest, according to Wade. In accepting the indictment Tuesday, US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya issued a summons for his appearance, not an arrest warrant." (Guardian, quoting Bloomberg). This seems to be "routine news coverage of announcements" that "is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject" according to WP:NOTNEWS. Similarly, other coverage includes e.g. anticipated work, i.e. hearing oral arguments, and submitting a report and recommendations to a federal district court judge for review (Bloomberg, Jan. 2023); delaying an arraignment and appointing a federal public defender (Reuters, Jan. 2023); granting a motion to delay a settlement conference (Bloomberg, Jun. 2023). She works on high-profile cases, but sources do not seem to offer secondary analysis or evaluation of her role to help support notability according to WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. The Wikiproject United States courts and judges WP:USJUDGE guidance says "Such judges are not inherently notable", but if an WP:NPOL presumption of notability exists for a magistrate judge, this seems rebutted here by a lack of sustained coverage from independent, reliable, and secondary sources. There are also nonindependent biographical materials from a former employer, e.g. [37], [38], [39], and a Bloomberg database profile, but these do not help support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Trump (or Beyonce or Zuckerberg) interacts with someone in an administrative capacity does not mean that they are notable. Think Clerk of the Court, bailiff who serves legal notices, policeman who escorts (and the command chains above them) Similarly tax auditors, notaries, etc, and in a health setting: nurses and non-lead doctors.
Apart from anything else, such people make no choice to be in the limelight and deserve not to be dragged into it, especially with the chance of fans of the famous person feeling aggrieved and seeking to harm them. Zsalya (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has thousands of biographies of people who make no choice to be in the lime light. That is how encyclopedias tend to be written. CT55555(talk) 02:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trump comes in contact with many people. That fact alone does not make them "notable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizrahim (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed "that fact alone" does not make her notable. But the significant coverage in reliable sources does. CT55555(talk) 02:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have sympathy for the argument to delete and I assume it was accurate when written, but the lack of significant coverage is no longer true, based on searches I did today. See:
  1. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/magistrate-judge-moxila-upadhyaya-trumps-jan-6-case/story?id=101990791
  2. https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/indian-american-judge-moxila-upadhyaya-presides-over-trumps-appearance-in-federal-courthouse/article67156014.ece
  3. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/us/politics/moxila-upadhyaya-trump-judge.html
Given the coverage is all recent, some might wonder if her notability for one event should preclude her, so also noting lots of brief mentions of her lawyering and judging, examples include:
  1. Brief mention in 2019: https://georgetowner.com/articles/2019/02/04/whatever-happened-whole-foods/
  2. Brief mention in 2023: https://www.reuters.com/legal/lockerbie-bombing-suspect-be-arraigned-us-federal-court-2023-01-25/
  3. Historical society profile here: https://dcchs.org/sb_pdf/biographical-sketch-of-moxila-upadhyaya/
I think it is also important that she played a role in a historically significant event (today) so she is someone that encyclopedia readers may want to read about. Noting ~3,800 page views today, which appears to support that. Overall the presence of this article is a net positive to the encyclopedia. CT55555(talk) 02:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last source listed is not a historical society profile, it is the pdf in my first comment above - a biography produced by a former employer, so not independent. In my second comment above, I discussed the first and third sources listed - ABC News "Who is Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya in Trump's Jan. 6 case?" and the NYT "Who is the judge handling Trump’s initial court appearance?", and how they are not sigcov, due to a lack of independent and secondary content. The Hindu coverage repeats similar information and says "according to her resume" when discussing her work at Venable. The Reuters coverage of her delaying an arraignment and appointing a federal public defender is discussed in my first comment (WP:NOTNEWS, lack of secondary analysis or evaluation). The mention in The Georgetowner ("a free bi-weekly tabloid-style newspaper") of something she wrote as an attorney on behalf of a client also seems to be routine coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:NOTNEWS precludes these sources because I don't think these profiles are "routine announcements", I think they are bona fide news articles and I think they have been written independently of the subject of the article. Yes, I see now that the historical society words are written by an ex employer, but it seems likely that the historical society made the decision that she was notable enough to publish it ("The Society is a tax exempt organization that operates independently from the courts"), so I think it counts for something (either way, it's not a core pillar of my keep !vote). CT55555(talk) 03:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the brief mentions of her work over the past year as a magistrate judge is routine/NOTNEWS coverage - her work includes high-profile cases, but her role is limited, so it is not unexpected that coverage is limited. The recent profiles (generated because of a very high-profile arraignment) repeat a similar biographical overview that appears on her US District Court biography and do not seem to be multiple sources for WP:GNG - fn4 notes It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Even if the apparent recycling of her employer profiles could serve as one source, there still does not appear to be substantial support for WP:BASIC notability from other sources, including the Legal Times blog noted below, or awards from her employer or co-counsel. Beccaynr (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Noje

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Agent Club

The Secret Agent Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
To quote my removed PROD:

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

That PROD was removed without comment, but sources were added so that's fine. The problem is that three of them are just databases (Mubi, FilmDienst, TV Guide), one is WhatCulture which "is considered generally unreliable", and one is Hulk Hogan's own book which does not give notability to a movie he starred in. I can't view the excerpts from that Orpheus Pub review to garner an opinion of it as a source, but even if it's reliable, it's the only one so far, and I didn't find anything else earlier as I said so I still don't see notability here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But fair enough, one can also add this review, at least to make sure it meets the requirements for notability of films. And this, this, this, this, etc.
For what it's worth, the film was internationally distributed and various sources exist when looking up with Spanish/Portuguese/French titles...
(Note- The assertion that That PROD was removed without comment is not true. I removed the Prod and I did add a comment both in the Old prod template on the talk page "Added sources, expanded, apparently notable" and in my edit summary "++, removed Prod by User:QuietHere", which is short but seems very clear and informs the nominator of the DeproD. Please check and amend your comment if you don't mind.)
-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "removed the PROD" without saying why is removing it without comment. Fair, you did then add a reason to the template on the talk page which I didn't see, and also that part doesn't matter because your reasoning was clear without being stated.
As for the sources you've linked, let's see. The Movie Scene is written by one person and makes no mention of editorial oversight so that likely gets struck down as unreliable/non-expert unless Webb is secretly some acclaimed film critic who I've just never heard of. Wealth of Geeks is a listicle and I've seen enough of those rejected to have my doubts, especially when there's only a few sentences on the movie and they're written by someone who appears to only write listicles. Cinema.de has a rating but no prose attached and is otherwise just a database page, not hot on that. Stinker Madness is a blog for someone's podcast which appears to also lacks editorial oversight and would be struck. And Kino.de suggests at the bottom of the page that the review there is one of what could be more, implying that review is a user submission, thus failing USERG. See how the recent Haunted Mansion lists 13 reviews and an average rating of them.
In short, I don't think any of those pages are reliable, and my mind has not been changed. Since you say you found more in other languages, please link them here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Saying "removed the PROD" without saying why is removing it without comment. No, I don't think it is the same. And in good faith if you quote it, you should quote my edit summary completely: "++, removed ProD by XXX", which obviously means I expanded the page or added various things to it, which clearly explains why I removed the tag (not to mention the size of the edit and the TP template). I am therefore forced to repeat that your opening assertion is simply not true. If it does not matter and was clear without being stated, why mention it at all? Let's forget it, as you clearly do not wish to amend that erroneous statement.
=========
Other reviews:
http://www.the-unknown-movies.com/unknownmovies/reviews/rev126.html
https://theschlockpit.com/2021/03/12/the-secret-agent-club-1996/ (this is hosted by Wordpress and is technically a blog)
Various other lists include the film with a brief assessment (ScreenRant, Complex).
There was apparently a review in Time Out at the time of the release but I can't access it and will not try. If anyone has time...
----------
I mentioned sources in other languages above "fwiw" to attest international distribution and attest the titles when they differ a lot from the original, but fair enough here's one review in French, for example:
https://www.senscritique.com/film/agent_double/critique/264611271
I'll let other users judge the quality and number of sources presented here, above and on the page, and will make no further comment in this discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Merrill, Paul (2000-10-01). "The Secret Agent Club". Empire. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.

      The review notes: "On a budget that would barely cover one of Arnie' cigars, that other body builder-cum-film star Hulk Hogan essentially remakes True Lies, this time with Jamie Lee Curtis replaced by the streetwise antics of a bunch of kids. ... With a little less overacting from the supporting cast, and a touch more imagination, this could have been lowbrow fun. As it is, it's bland, only occasionally entertaining, nonsense."

    2. Felperin, Leslie (1996-09-01). "The Secret Agent Club". Sight and Sound. Vol. 6, no. 9. pp. 53–54. ProQuest 1305512516.

      The article notes: "The biggest danger the film flirts with is of degenerating into a out-and-out camp farce, which might have generated a bigger audience beyond kids and those who enjoy watching Plan 9 From Outer Space all the way through. Director John Murlowski, a former music video director whose feature credits include Amityville: The New Generation and Automatic, only just avoids going down this road, perhaps to his credit. His evident ability to maintain conviction in this possibly career-wrecking venture suggests that he must have learnt a thing or two in his early days making public service announcements for the Suicide Prevention Center (a detail conveyed in the film's press notes). However, with its ridiculous collection of mugging baddies (foremost offender being the sadly fallen Lesley-Anne Down as the vampish Eve), cheesy action sequences, and bad special effects, The Secret Agent Club is likely only to save the lives of depressives with a taste for borderline kitsch and fanatical Hulk Hogan fans."

    3. "The Secret Agent Club Reviews". TV Guide. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.

      The review notes: "Although he has played a campy villain in the ring and in ROCKY III (1982), wrestling star Terry "Hulk" Hogan has a more upstanding role in this low-grade, family action-comedy. ... After a 007-style entrance, Hogan, rather suprisingly, gets written out of most of the plot, leaving a multicultural band of bland children to carry on slapstick action heroics. Special effects and stunts look acceptable granted the low budget, although mistaking the awesome disintegrator handgun for a chintzy toy is an error any observer could make."

    4. Myers, Randy (1997-08-29). "Best Family Fare Comes Home". Contra Costa Times. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.

      The review notes: ""THE SECRET AGENT CLUB": Lethal. When a studio trumpets the fact that a film is a cross between "Home Alone" and "True Lies," you gotta wonder: What brand of glue did the studio execs start sniffing? This time, first impressions are as accurate as the Weekly World News. Yes, "The Secret Agent Club" is junk. But kids need B movies just like their parents. ... Remember how much you liked the original "Batman" series when you were a kid? Your children will experience the same feeling with "Club.""

    5. Millar, John (1996-08-15). "Just a basic stinker from Sharon - It's hard to care whether La Stone gets away with murder or not". Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.

      The article notes: "Hulk Hogan flexes his muscles for another bid for box office glory ... only to finish up flat on his backside. In The Secret Agent Club (PG) the big guy stars in a feeble fourth division version of True Lies. Where Arnie had a budget, sock-it-to-them action and wisecracking script, however, Hulk's has very little at all to commend it. In this bit of froth for the teenies, the former wrestler's cover is that he runs a toy shop. The reality is that he's a super-duper agent whose speciality is saving the world from power- mad baddies like Lesley-Anne Down. And whatever did happen to her career? This certainly won't help it along."

    6. Perry, George (1996-08-18). "The rest of the week's films - Cinema". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.

      The review notes: "John Murlowski's dumb, noisy, explosive adventure is a sort of juvenile version of Schwarzenegger's True Lies, and Leslie-Anne Down, as the sexy English villainess, delivers her lines with pantomime-like flourishes, suggesting that she has got the measure of the material. Hulk, with his indestructible jaw and weird hairline, is hardly a model of Bondian suaveness and, sadly, spends far too long doing nothing more than lying flat on his back resisting various mind tortures, when he should really be out there in the action."

    7. "Jock that shocks - Private Parts Ch4, 10.00pm - 12.05am". Daily Record. 2000-03-18. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.

      The review notes: "HULK HOGAN as secret agent relying on his young son's help in True Lies slapstick for the tiny-tots set. It went direct to video in the United States, propelled by Jan Hammer's old-fashioned synthesizer score. The script is so full of inane puns it must have arrived at Hogan's house covered in Schwarzenegger's thumbprints. With Lesley-Anne Down"

    8. Simon Rose articles:
      1. Rose, Simon (1996-08-22). "Hogan's zeroes". Daily Mirror. ProQuest 337918536. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.

        The review notes: " The Secret Agent Club ... It's utter drivel, but the kids it's aimed at will probably like its Home Alone-style. "

      2. Rose, Simon (1996-12-05). "Scope for a few laughs". Daily Mirror. ProQuest 337870069. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05.

        The review notes: "Captured by evil arms dealer Lesley-Anne Down, his son and his mates set out to rescue him. It's utter drivel, cheaply and shoddily made. But while adults will find it torture, the single-digit-aged kids it's aimed at will probably relish the Home Alone-style antics."

      3. S, T (1996-08-30). "Hogan's not as strong in the acting stakes". Sutton Coldfield Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review notes: "Villains are made to look doubly stupid, coupled with the non-existent thrills of and a total lack of finesse or restraint, 'The Secret Agents Club' is a movie full of half-baked comedy ideas that just do not work - even at juvenile level. It is also sad to see 70's star Lesley-Anne Down reduced to playing a 'vamp' villain in the campy mode of Joan Collins."

    9. Davies, Mike (1996-08-23). "Murder and mirth on the supper menu". Birmingham Post. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Coming up slow, but disappearing fast, is kids' movie The Secret Agent Club. the non-awaited big screen return of former wrestler Hulk Hogan, a man who makes Wolf from Gladiators look like a RADA honours graduate. ... On a budget that makes Blakes 7 look extravagant, the only thing in its favour is that Hogan spends most of the film strapped to a table. The difference between that and his acting in other in other more animated scenes is minimal."

    10. Patterson, Mark (1996-08-23). "Hulking effort is lacking". Nottingham Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Home Alone was an excellent example of this. The Secret Agent Club isn't, basically because the bits that make grown-ups giggle aren't in the script. No naughty double-entendre here, no sir. ... Another problem is that there isn't enough action. Indeed, the whole affair has a somewhat drab, cheap, downmarket feel to it. The kids may not notice - parents will."

    11. "Leslie is hamming it up with the Hulk". Bristol Evening Post . 1996-08-16. Archived from the original on 2023-08-05. Retrieved 2023-08-05 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "If you've seen the movie True Lies with Arnold Schwarzenegger, then The Secret Agent Club is the same plot but without the thrills. The laser gun looks like something you could pick up at Toys R Us and every expense appears to have been spared presumably to pay Hogan. With a larger budget and a little more thought, The Secret Agent Club could have been an entertaining family film. Instead, it barely comes up to scratch with just a few entertaining moments and a lot of bland nonsense in between."

    12. Fane-Saunders, Kilmeny, ed. (2000). "The Secret Agent Club". Radio Times Guide to Films. London: BBC Worldwide. p. 1252. ISBN 0-563-53710-8. Retrieved 2023-08-05 – via Google Books.

      The review notes: "Hulk Hogan briefly becomes charming as his secret agent character returns to his civilian disguise as a nerdy single father. Then he's kidnapped by arms dealers, and spends most of the movie under sedation. His young son gets his friends to help track down and spring his father, dodging bullets and killers while having a jolly good time. Reprehensible in its attitude towards violence while children are present, this also contains blatant racist stereotypes. It's a pity the audience couldn't be as unconscious as Hogan was throughout this travesty."

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard such as Empire magazine, Sight & Sound, Daily Record, Sunday Times and others that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Heydari

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

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn until work on article is done; I intend to re-open this AFD (if appropriate) once it appears that the primary contributors have finished adding their stuff to the article, as there's still a lot being done here. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Joseph Schroeter

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

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

I continued this discussion on your talk page; I don‘t think it belongs at this AFD. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I made inappropriate, intemperate comments that did not directly address the topic at hand: deletion or retention of this article. For those who need to see them, they're in this diff and in the page history.
I apologize for acting this way.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the articles again and determine if there is still insufficient source material. Per WP:BASIC, academics can be notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. The source link to his co-authored patent on acoustic plaster is a significant contribution to the field of architectural acoustics and these principles are still used today. Bcudequest (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dotsoul

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

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Erzincan#Liberation of Erzincan. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Erzincan

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

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

Merge and redirect to Erzincan#Liberation of Erzincan. It still sounds like the content could be transferred to another article. Aintabli (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Excellent suggestion Aintabli. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Merge or keep. The information the nominator mentions about evacuation is not in the main article, and the article makes no claim about a "battle". The good faith nomination may have misunderstood the subject matter of the article, as the nom's own research shows that deletion is a sub-optimal outcome. Based on the sources in the article it seems likely this meets WP:GNG, but WP:ATD-M to Erzincan § Liberation of Erzincan is acceptable as there may not be much more to add. —siroχo 08:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Nazarbayev University. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nazarbayev University Repository

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

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

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

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

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

Gracies Dinnertime Theatre

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

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

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

GDT started out on RIT, but was published and distributed on the University of Rochester, Monroe Community College, Rutgers University, and broadly in the city of Rochester, NY. It was never a RIT sanctioned organization, and really should not be merged with the RIT page. Kjoenth (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re "No reliable secondary sources."
-Democrat & Chronicle is daily newspaper published in Rochester, NY (two citations)
-A blog entry by one of the founders is neither RIT nor the publication
-A brand new 2.5hr audio history/interview of two of the founding editors
-Independent Press Association
-USAToday/Uwire Kjoenth (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keep: Does not appear to fail WE:NPERIODICAL. Specifically, GDT was printed and released on a regular schedule and distributed through a press syndicate.
-Confer with similar notable student publications Harvard Lampoon, UW's Onion, The Cornell Lunatic, etc.
-The Democrat and Chronicle is a reliable secondary source unencumbered by any conflict of interest. --U664003803 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that D&C is a reliable source, but I'm wondering if it was just a passing mention or if it received significant coverage by the D&C. The newspaper is locked behind a paywall so I don't know. Additionally, a blog entry typically isn't reliable under WP:RSBLOG. Can't say for sure about an interview, if that meets WP:RS. --My Pants Metal (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re the article in the D&C: the article is specifically about how GDT/Hell's Kitchen was trying to get more funding sources. Mentions their membership in Uwire and the Independent Associated Press. Has pull quotes from interviews with people at GDT, Hell's Kitchen, and the executive director of the Independent Press Association. Approximately 2/3 of newspaper page, 1st page of the business section. Kjoenth (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "blog entry typically isn't reliable"-- I am a novice at this sort of thing, but as the blog entry is written by one of the founders of GDT on the topic of the evolution of the logo, doesn't that make the blog a primary source as in "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"?
Contextually, it is difficult to see how a citation about the logo could from sources other than the publication itself or something written by one of the people involved with the publication.
I tend to agree with U664003803 that the pages that exist for other student-started satire publications offer good examples. Kjoenth (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was written by a person associated with the publication is why it DOESN'T show notability. Sources that show notability are reliable, secondary and independent. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

tl;dr: Keep
@My Pants Metal lists two broad categories supporting deletion:
  1. Appears to fail WP:NPERIODICAL.
  2. Weak sources in the article, including the observation that sources are either the publication itself or the RIT website. No reliable secondary sources.
@My Pants Metal suggests merging a portion of this article into the Rochester Institute of Technology page per WP:STUDENTMEDIA.
I believe @My Pants Metal misunderstands what the relationship between GDT and RIT was. For this reason, I will begin with why the GDT article can not merge with the RIT entry
A.) GDT was never a RIT organization
GDT was founded by RIT undergraduates, but was never a RIT student organization. It remained an independent, student-run publication from its founding until its final issue in 2005. Since GDT was not a RIT student organization, the administration could not disband it. In the end, RIT President Al Simone resorted to prohibiting RIT organizations from assisting GDT. In the July-Dec 2004 issue of "Questions and Answers with Al Simone", President Simone outlined the steps the RIT administration would implement:
"I have decided that Institute property and resources will no longer be available for the production of Gracie’s Dinnertime Theatre. These resources include:
  1. Computers and servers owned or supported by RIT.
  2. The use of the HUB will no longer be available for the copying of the publication.
  3. Funds from Institute accounts cannot be used to purchase advertisements in the publication."
The administration's steps to deny GDT access to Institute resources were necessary because GDT was _not_ a RIT organization, and could not be disbanded by the Institute. For this reason, it has no place on the RIT wikipedia entry.
B.) Does not fail WP:NPERIODICAL
As noted by user @U664003803, GDT was published on a regular schedule--initially being weekly during RIT academic year, and then as it's circulation expanded to include the University of Rochester and Monroe Community College, weekly during their academic year's as well (taking into account differing timings of holidays when RIT was on the quarter system while the other universities were on the semester system).
GDT, as a member of Hell's Kitchen (a 501(c)(3) organization founded by GDT to act as an publishing umbrella organization for it and affiliated publications) would go on the have articles distributed to university publications nationwide through Uwire, and had at least one article reproduced in USAToday through the distribution of content through Uwire.
GDT/Hell's Kitchen would also be recognized by the Independent Press Association's(IPA) "Publication of the Month". One of the founders of GDT would be interviewed by the IPA for an article.
C.) Reliable secondary sources include the D&C and RIT itself
The nominator acknowledges that the Democrat & Chronicle is a reliable secondary source. While the article in question is behind a paywall, that does not invalidate that the article is about GDT/Hell's Kitchen with a focus on their circulation and finances. While it should not be necessary, I am happy to provide a copy of the content behind the paywall.
Since GDT was never a RIT organization--again, it was distributed on three campuses in Rochester, NY--citations on the RIT website, including those from the RIT library archives, and Reporter Magazine, and commentary about artwork on campus, are secondary sources in relation to GDT.
The distinction between GDT and RIT is critical in understanding the notability of the publication: it was a student-founded publication that published, weekly during the academic year, for 10 years (1995-2005). It was never affiliated with RIT, the University of Rochester, or Monroe Community College, but was staffed by students (and alumni) from all of these institutions, and distributed on these campuses for the entertainment of those students.
As far as I know, there had never been an inter-collegic publication founded and run by students in Rochester, NY prior to GDT, and certainly none that engaged in that activity for 10 years. All other publications I am aware of in Rochester were either aimed at the population of Rochester, or were official student publications restricted to the university they were affiliated with. Kjoenth (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment the USA Today source is a bare url [40] which does not work. Kjoenth are you able to find that reference please? We are saying the sources under consideration are:
  • -Democrat & Chronicle is daily newspaper published in Rochester, NY (two citations)
So the people doing it get a couple of mentions in the local newspaper.
  • -A blog entry by one of the founders is neither RIT nor the publication
I think this one fails as a self published source.
  • -A brand new 2.5hr audio history/interview of two of the founding editors
This is referenced to Reddit and YouTube. This doesn't look like an in independent secondary source. Was the interview broadcast anywhere?
  • -Independent Press Association
This ref looks good[41]. It would, however, be better if we had it in the source publication. This snippet is hosted on hellskitchen.org, along with most of the material referenced here, but that is a private domain owned by a an individual who avails themself of the privacy services afforded to private registrants and hosted by NameCheap inc - a low cost virtially hosted hosting service. This is problematic for most of the references here. Although there is no indication the snippet is anything but genuine, this would be how a hoax would be set up too. Presumably that snippet came from somewhere and we should reference that properly.
  • -USAToday/Uwire
As above, this bare URL reference needs addressing.
So, in summary, I think we need to do a bit more work to establish notability here, although there are potentially a couple of good sources here. If we can see what USA Today said, I may be closer to forming an opinion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a physical copy of the Independent Press Association writeup ("Cooking with Confusion in 'Hell's Kitchen'". Ink Reader. 1 (5): 3. November 1998.) I have not found a digital copy of that edition of IPA's "Ink Reader" on the web. The snippet hosted on hellskitchen.org is from "Ink reader". The IPA ceased operation in January 2007.
Similar for the USAToday/Uwire link, I have a hard copy printout of the original page. The material was USAToday reprinting an article. Unfortunately Uwire was bought in 2008 and suspended all wire services in 2009. Likewise USAToday did away with all the web pages that displayed reproduced material.
I am happy to provide reproductions of this materials in the talk, but ultimately what we are dealing with is link rot/material in physical form only.
Is the interview in Reporter Magazine (Boden, Jess (11 May 2001). "Life According to Gracies". The Reporter: 11. Retrieved 19 July 2023.) not an acceptable source? The argument I made was that, since GDT was not affiliated with RIT, RIT media count as independent sources. Kjoenth (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just link rot, it is that the bare URL refs do not tell us where the information can be found. Ref 7, which you describe properly here, is inaccessible but properly described. You could put a link to your copy in the url parameter to allow review, and then ref 8 needs to be described in the same way. I gather from the date that it is October 1998, so us that issue 4? That would resolve the issue with ref 8. It is not essential that refs are available online, but there needs to be enough information that the original can be found. Likewise with the USA Today article, all we have is the URL. If this was published in the newspaper, we can search for it in various archives, but at this point we do not have any information as to the date of publication. I have carried out newspaper searches for this article and have not found it, but I have been searching "Gracies Dinnertime Theatre." Is the reproduced article credited to some other name?
The next question is to whether these sources amount to sufficient evidence of notability per WP:NPERIODICAL. Those guidelines list 4 "presumed notability" guidelines, but I see no evidence it meets any of those. Not to worry though, because the guidelines are clear that it may still be notable if it passes WP:N, so we are looking at the general notability guidelines. To be presumed notable we are looking for multiple significant reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. We have potentially two articles in the IPA and one article potentially published in USA Today. It is not nothing, but it is not multiple, as per GNG either (because multiple from a single author, the IPA in this case, would be treated together).
Additionally I have questions about how significant publication in the IPA newsletter actually is. The IPA is a small (and possibly now defunct?) grassroots member organisation. If they carry an article about one of their members in a newsletter, this fails on the independent criterion. I can see they were granted money to do their work [42] and I am not saying they were unimportant as an association, but the notabilty guidelines require independent coverage. The USA Today presumably published an article without significantly addressing the source.
I also question whether any of these mentions are under the name in the article title, or whether the article is perhaps mistitled, but that point may be moot at this stage.
Although I am leaning delete here, I am reluctant to post that as a !vote. Is there an alternative to deletion here? You say it had no official status so it cannot be merged with the RIT page - yet if it were a recognised campus publication, I think it could be mentioned there. Or perhaps there are other places information could be merged? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy I'll go through the archives and pull up information about the interview with the IPA and the USAtoday link.
As for merging, I was initially dubious, but I now see the appeal of somehow merging into pages for RIT, the University of Rochester, and Monroe Community College. Since Gracies Dinnertime Theatre was staffed by students from all three campuses and distributed on all three campuses, it would have to someone be triply merged into them.
I joke, of course; that's an unreasonable action. Given RIT president Al Simone's position that GDT should not have access to any RIT resources, there is a sort of deliciousness at the idea of being merged into the RIT wikipedia page, though.
IPA is definitely defunct now, but with members like "Mother Jones" and "Bitch", calling it a grassroots member organization makes it sound much smaller than it was. Kjoenth (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Redirect with Rochester Institute of Technology per the discussion above. I am sorry that I don't think it passes WP:GNG nor WP:NPERIODICAL, but there is some information of interest here that could be retained - certainly enough for a section on the target page. It is worth a mention that such a periodical existed, and how it was received (or not, as the case may be). The merge will also involve a redirect from this page that preserves this page history, should the situation change - although it seems unlikely it will change as it has ceased publication. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, sadly I agree, and the fact the discussion went quiet leads me to the reluctant conclusion that merge is not really viable. I am striking my merge, but moving to Redirect as a WP:ATD. This would, at least, preserve the page history that might be mineable for a paragraph that might be added to the RIT page. Do you oppose a redirect? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Belmont Sessions

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

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Voices for Reform

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Myong-chol

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doge Weather

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El Arroyo

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment: I'm not in Texas and I'm hardly au courant on popular culture topics. If even I've heard of this place and seen pictures of their sign, it's got to be notable somehow.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IKNOWIT LibStar (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After a less-than-exhaustive search I've found a several sources of SIGCOV, from places other than Austin TX. I have no AUD worries here. Here are the 3 I read most of:
    1. Coverage from Merced, California, Sun-Star [48]
    2. Via newspapers.com - Corpus Christi Caller Times article about a book about their marquee, with direct coverage of the Marquee and restaurant itself. [49]
    3. Fort Worth Star Telegram source about the restaurant, covering both the Austin location as well as a contemporaneously new location. [50]
Side note - this business seems like a regional chain, not that that changes anything regarding notability.
—siroχo 09:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 09:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep due to ...its enduring legacy, appearances in local and partially national media, and its unique elements. It appears to have a significant cultural influence in its local area, particularly through its innovative marketing strategy featuring a humorous marquee. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified. Please nominate wisely. Nominations based on "it seems", "maybe", "I believe" and the like often waste community resources. There is no lack of AfDs, to say the least! gidonb (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Good Vibes Festival. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 The 1975 Malaysia performance

2023 The 1975 Malaysia performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ultimately the disagreement came down to whether the "+" in the NYT+ sources were sufficient, and it wasn't settled. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Burleson

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

Non-notable radio personality. The one NYT article is fine, but that's about all there is for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just about. This person is more of a social media personality than a radio guy, and there seems to just about be enough sourcing to justify an article, including in the NYT. It's fluffy stuff, but pop culture generally is. Flip Format (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Most known for hosting Fallen Media's TikTok interview series, "What’s Poppin? With Davis!" " and consensus has been consistently that's not notability, right there. NYT, fine - although I can't access it and suspect it's an interview - but even if we count it towards WP:GNG, that's one single RS piece. Other than that, we're at Footwear News (an interview) and I'm not buying. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The NYT article is actually not an interview; it can be accessed here through the Internet Archive. While this piece is mostly an interview, the paragraph that precedes the actual interview is enough to constitute significant coverage. There's also this article, as well as this tangential coverage in Business Insider. WP:BASIC allows us to combine non-substantial coverage from reliable sources to meet notability guidelines, so I think this is already enough. Pinging Alexandermcnabb to make them aware of the NYT article. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, thanks. The NYT is all there is to be said in defence but it is an interview, albeit with a gushy intro. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Hartley

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

Does not meet the sustained coverage from secondary sources to meet WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per the nomination, the article fails WP:GNG and seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E; no news mentions of her are found outside of the Miss New Hampshire contest, however of note, she does have a Instagram account with 27 thousand followers. Regardless if these followers remember her for the pageant or for her content is yet to be seen. IncompA 02:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the rationale in the nomination statement. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndsay Kahler

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that does not pass WP:GNG. Is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Of those who provided a policy-backed reason, there was a consensus for deletion on failure to show notability. Several individuals did suggest the same merge target, but with some comments against it, I was nervous about going that route especially given weight of opinions. There was an even clearer rebuttal against redirection. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School, Barabanki

St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School, Barabanki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod was removed and only primary sources were added. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you say more? I'm not sure that I follow the points you are trying to make here. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: WP:NSCHOOL isn't met due to lack of in-depth coverage. Readers looking for this specific school would probably be surprised to see its article space redirected to Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucknow; deletion seems like the best option to me. JFHJr (㊟) 22:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I looked through Hindi news to find some coverage of this school. Most sources for this area are likely in non-online archives. Nonetheless, I found one article in Dainik Bhaskar about the school's christmas program. I also saw the school performed very prominently in the board exams, suggesting to me it is a prominent school in the area. I don't actally know Hindi, but managed to find these sources. I say it is very high probablity there has been sustained news coverage about this school, that may not be easy to access online. Nonetheless, I think the article is viable as a stub. Jagmanst (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have added a few more media sources. Jagmanst (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with that. Even I came across those links couple of days back but was not sure how to add the stuff to article so added google search link in external links section.--Fztcs 11:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing Sigcov here. Okoslavia (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I want to point to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which clearly states that, "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them" (probably suggestions of C.Fred & Joyous! are on similar lines.).
Also, the point to be noted is that this article was created in 2007 (~10years before February 2017 RFC), when "secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence". So, the artice was not only created in good-faith but also was valid for 10years of it's existence as per then WP policies. Now i.e., after 2017-RFC, which although says, "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist", but also states, "References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AfD." & "Editors should not flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations.", there is a drive to delete this article. IMHO, the article although a stub, doesn't violates any policy (especially related to negative matters like spam,promotion, etc.) and covers a ~46years old important secondary educational institute of Barabanki district (a area with not much coverage by media in general and English media in particular). Considering these points, I still believe that article merits strong keep, worst case there may be a merge/redirect but definitely no delete.--Fztcs 05:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC also had this to say:
"The argument that sources for secondary schools are more difficult to find than they are for typical topics because they are likely to be concentrated in local and/or print media is very valid. Additionally, the argument that removing the presumption of notability from schools would increase systematic bias is very strong."


I also note this argument made in the RFC debate has proven correct:
"even if this RfC agrees on a consensus that schools must be shown to meet GNG, I have zero hope that this principle will be applied to secondary schools in the Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or the United States. There will be arguments over whether or not the extensive local coverage counts, but it will likely be resolved in favour of the high school. The consensus of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES will likely still be the de facto consensus for schools in these countries. This RfC was largely started because of outcomes of no consensus or delete for schools in South Asia." Jagmanst (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, this particular school has significant coverage in media. It has been shown to be significant especially with regards to its district leading examination performance, which is neither routine or run of the mill. So despite not being a western school, it should be kept. Jagmanst (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - contra the keep claims, provided coverage is threadbare and doesn't add up to GNG. Bhaskar is brief coverage of a pageant performed by students of the school, with nearly nothing about the school itself; Amarujala lists high-ranking students' test scores from several schools, including multiple students from St. Anthony, but again no real coverage of the school itself. If there were a lot more examples like the Bhaskar piece I would flip to keep on an WP:NEXIST basis that a school generating that much routine coverage has almost surely produced significant coverage somewhere, but with just the one I'm not convinced. Arguments regarding over a decade of evolving consensus on school notability come off as wiki-lawyering. signed, Rosguill talk 14:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I put a whole lot of other media coverage similar to Bhaskar. See footnote 8. Footnote 7 shows TV news coverage about the school's exceptional exam performance.
    Jagmanst (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Survivor Greece. Sometimes it takes 3 1/2 weeks to come to an agreeable closure. Relisting works! Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Greece (season 11)

Survivor Greece (season 11) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. The articles for other previous seasons were all created shortly before their start, while this one was created right after the previous season ended. The article doesn't source that it has been confirmed, and I haven't found any sources either. I think it should be deleted for now and recreated once there is actual info, in what might be a few months to a year. GoodCrossing (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The show is in pre production. The producers have already announced the next season. I haven't added any fake information. The page will be updated by me when I have valid information. Survivor Greece starts every year at December. Valid info will be available at fall. Kostargr (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, and I don't think that there is any fake information in the article. The fact is that there isn't any relevant information at the moment. Even if the contest takes place the same month each year, until there is nothing to say about the show, it might be best to redirect to the main Survivor Greece article (see the creation history of Eurovision Song Contest 2024 for an example). Once there is information about that season, it's perfectly OK to create the article again. GoodCrossing (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if the redirect suggestion has any support.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Ringdahl

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

Lacks sustained coverage as a former beauty pageant contestant. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elona Rusta

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

Non notable cyclist, who according to ProCyclingStats never even competed in a UCI race. Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Morgue (unreleased film)

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

Delete or draftify until release. Unreleased film. Unknown producer. Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines DareshMohan (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per the nomination, the film is yet to release, and I have reason to believe it never will. Photography began in October of 2020? It's nearly been 3 years and no word of the film has come out since. COVID-19 hit the Malayalam film industry hard and this film was one that was hit. It also fails WP:GNG and the producers (maybe multiple if we look at the article itself?) are unknown. IncompA 02:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NFF as the production itself is not notable. —siroχo 04:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this film project is notable, no further sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Torah Institute

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

Lack of notability. I can only find two reliable secondary sources, both published by the same news organization. Bear of Tomato (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_2&oldid=1169604509"