Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 13
![]() |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Milkshape 3D (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 software. WP:VG/SE shows no significant coverage and barely any mentions in reliable sources. IceWelder [✉] 19:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 19:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Can't locate any reliable in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, reluctantly. There's a fair amount of discussion online, but it's all old and comes from unreliable sources. If someone can come up with good secondary sources I'd happily switch my vote to keep, but I couldn't find any. Moonreach (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Katerin Alfaro (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 earned at least two caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spirits (TV series)#Remake. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Spirits Reawaken (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)
Web series reboot of a TV series, with almost no coverage online. In a WP:BEFORE search, all I could find on reliable secondary sources was a few passing mentions, in articles about the actors. Not all programmes released by notable outlets are themselves inherently notable, and I can't see how this web series merits a separate article. WP:SPA article creator since June. Wikishovel (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Philippines. Wikishovel (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to
List of iWantTFC original programming#DramaSpirits (TV series)#Remake: I found only 2 sources about the show, but it seems to not fully pass GNG: [1] [2]. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Changed redirect target per Mushy Yank's suggestion. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect, as ThisIsSeanJ suggests, but maybe rather to Spirits (TV series)#Remake, of which this is a remake? Both are OK, I suppose.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment two spellings are used in primary sources: Spirits Reawaken and Spirits: Reawaken, so if the outcome here is to redirect, then the second redirect should also be created and subject to the same consensus. Wikishovel (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, true. But I'd say that whatever the outcome is, it applies to both pages. (Maybe that was exactly what you meant!) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, I only meant for redirection. But thinking about it, I agree with you: whatever the outcome, it should apply to both. Wikishovel (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, true. But I'd say that whatever the outcome is, it applies to both pages. (Maybe that was exactly what you meant!) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Malik Jalal (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 performing clean up, I'm not sure there's a Wikipedia article here. There's WP:RS of the subject's claims, but not about the subject to establish notability. In fact, the RS reporting places doubt on the credibility of the subject's claims, and the RS coverage is only because a parliamentarian provided a platform. In addition, the coverage was not sustained beyond his initial 2016 claims. Basically, the RS does not establish GNG, from my read. Longhornsg (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nominator. Although there are articles covering him, they primarily focus on a single event. This doesn't sufficiently establish notability in my eyes. - The9Man (Talk) 15:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Louise Camrass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:NARTIST - RichT|C|E-Mail 18:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, and Arts. - RichT|C|E-Mail 18:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The page would need rework. Other sources on her individual work include:
- Museum of Motherhood article [3]
- https://disabilityarts.online/events/free-space-project-present-you-me-and-the-sky-by-louise-camrass-london/
- Some awards/nominations/collective screenings/associated acts are mentioned by various sources, not all independent.
- So...redirect to List of alumni of Central Saint Martins?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete WP:BEFORE brings up only a reliable source for birth year and education. Most of the other citations are passing mentions of being included in film screenings or exhibitions. The Motherhood Museum link (above) is an illustration credit for an article and the other link to Kentish Town Health Centre is a press release for an exhibition. I do not see any in-depth coverage and she fails WP:NARTIST - no notable exhibitions or collections. I moved the passing mentions off the main space and into the talk. Embedded links that can't be properly included in the article.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Darlene Taylor (Hollyoaks) (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)
Has only one source, which is from a tabloid paper. Found nothing with WP:BEFORE except for sources talking about the actress' future works. Not sure exactly where this could be merged or redirected to, as many list pages from this show should probably also be deleted. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor. The character does not have enough SIGCOV for a standalone article. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor due to lack of sources available on the character, as well as lack of real-world information.– Meena • 18:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- Changing vote to keep following improvements made by Raintheone. – Meena • 13:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Meena: I mean, the Guardian source and the Digital Spy source are both very short and are literal character bios and plot description respectively. Metro does not even talk about the character outside of literally two sentences. All of the other new sources are WP:PRIMARY. There is still basically no coverage. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Changing vote to keep following improvements made by Raintheone. – Meena • 13:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep due to improvements made to the article. While much more could be done, it's a good start that is enough to show the article is notable. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor. I would ideally like to keep this but a merge is more reasonable. Just wanted to add that the yearly lists should not be deleted. They are important to soap operas for the information about the character's and plot and context. Soaps do not have seasons and thus there is not a season/series page for each year like there are for other TV shows, and soaps are long running (Hollyoaks has been running since 1995, whilst Coronation Street since 1960!) and air 4–6 new episodes a week and thus have a large cast and set of characters that have very long storylines and context. Some of the earlier Hollyoaks yearly lists are not as sourced as is ideal, but we are working on that. But if you look at some of the later articles, such as List of Hollyoaks characters (2022) or List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s), you can see that every character that has a section is sourced and has real life information (reception, development, casting, quotes etc). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I do have to say this is rather unusual for television show casts. Look at, say List of Millennium characters, it quickly covers the character's presence in each season and then goes more into detail about the main and reoccurring characters. Minor characters are simply excluded, unless they are the subject of significant coverage or controversy. I think you can merge each yearly list into a decade list (List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s) is not a bad example here). Also, most of the sources on List of Hollyoaks characters (2022) are WP:PRIMARY and many of the others come from the same source (Digital Spy) which is discouraged. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- UPDATE:Strong keep due to the improvements on the page which show development and casting information and demonstrate clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - an article with real-world information and sources. No reason to delete this article. Soaper1234 - talk 20:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Robert Boury (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 musician, doesn't appear to meet WP:COMPOSER. Mooonswimmer 17:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Arkansas. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Los Angeles crime family. There is certainly an overwhelming desire for this to not be kept as a standalone article, that much is clear. Closing as no consensus would not be in keeping with that desire. A delete decision would not preclude anyone from updating any proposed merge target, but it would remove the current title from being a redirect. As the List of Cohen crime family members is already slated to be merged to the LA crime family article, any remaining sourced information from this article should be merged there as well. I note that there is nothing stopping anyone from adding any sourced material to Mickey Cohen as well. UtherSRG (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Cohen crime family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a largely unsourced, largely OR compendium of material. Sure there are sources, but all deal with irrelevancies and side topics and none, zero, even attempt to address the subject of the article, the supposed "Cohen crime family" No sourcing is offered to indicate that such a "crime family" actually existed. In fact, if you look at the section called "Formation," you find that the formation of this supposed "crime family" is not described.
This article was merged into Mickey Cohen in 2019 but was recently unmerged. I have no objection to merging in lieu of deletion, but this article adds little if anything to the Cohen article due to its lack of useful sourcing.
Note that the realated article List of Cohen crime family members, which has zero sourcing, has been nominated for deletion on the same grounds. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cohen crime family members Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC) nomination updated. Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Merge with Mickey Cohen per my nomination. Tuck this into that other article, as happened in 2019 with no objection until two days ago. Though this article doesn't add very much usable material to Cohen, a merge in lieu of deletion is harmless. Coretheapple (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Changing my !vote to Delete. There is no point to merging since there is no sourcing substantiating the existence of the article subject. A discussion of which article should be the merger target strikes me as unnecessary. Coretheapple (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Striking out to avoid giving the impression of a duplicate !vote. Just noting as nominator that I believe that delete iis preferable to merging. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, California, and Nevada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Keep This is a major crime family with a storied history, in relation to both the Italian-American Mafia and Jewish-American organized crime. However, it is unclear how major, given the fact that much of it only alludes to Mickey Cohen himself. It certainly needs more detail and sources, but I believe it should be given the chance to add this. PickleG13 (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- PickleG13 Can you please cite a single reliable secondary source that substantiates your statement that the "Cohen crime family" existed, much less that it was a "major crime family"? I have searched diligently and found not even a single source substantiating the existence of the subject of this article. Secondly, the article was created in 2015 and tagged in 2019. Ample opportunity has been given to source this article. Coretheapple (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
*Merge List of Cohen crime family members into this one. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: That does not make sense. Since this article is proposed for deletion, your suggestion implies that article should also be deleted. You cannot keep your cake for later and eat it at the same time. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge into Los Angeles crime family under the section about Jack Dragna. This so-called family appears to have arisen as a result of a falling out between Dragna and Mickey Cohen when Bugsy Siegel was killed. Also, both Siegel and Cohen were working for the New York mafia, so their West Coast operations is more like a branch office. Follow the chain of command to the top, Cohen wasn't the boss, just Siegel's lieutenant and bodyguard. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a Keep and two different Merge targets that have been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge with Mickey Cohen per nom. I am also not finding independent confirmation that a "family" under this name (or Siegel crime syndicate) existed, and WP is not a reliable source. Cohen surely existed, and the activities regarding the remnants of the West Coast Lansky-Siegel operation that Cohen controlled and utilized to do battle with the Los Angeles crime family can be folded into his article, minus the background information (it's only there to pad the article) which can already be found under Jewish-American organized crime, Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel. Compare for example New York divorce coercion gang, another descriptive Jewish gang name that cannot be found in sources, but is kept in lieu of having the article at Mendel Epstein (the ringleader). Here, the situation will be the reverse—but having 2 articles in any case is not sensible. StonyBrook babble 15:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in case there are more opinions about the two different Merge target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment re Liz's comment in relisting, note that I have changed my !vote to
deleteas merger would serve no useful purpose. If there is no consensus on a merger target, that does not detract from the utter lack of sourcing for the very existence of the article subject. Coretheapple (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like this is a duplicate vote. Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Fixing what I believe is your concern. Also I am puzzled by your comment about a possible no consensus close, which I believe would be tantamount to keeping. If only one !vote is for keep, the consensus is not to keep. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think Liz was only trying to encourage a stronger attempt at achieving consensus. Simply pointing out that there is currently no consensus about what to do with an article does not imply that it is worth keeping, only that the default result is that it will remain, for now. StonyBrook babble 17:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- But that's my point. There is a clear consensus at this time that it not remain. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- As a standalone article. As of now, there is no clear consensus to make the content therein completely disappear, which is what happens as a result of the deletion process. As stated above, I am in favor of including the general information in the Mickey Cohen article. However, that does not mean I agree that there ever was a Cohen crime family per se. It just means that I think the people who worked for and with Cohen should be included in his article in some form, whether via prose or a list. StonyBrook babble 18:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's my feeling as well. Perhaps my !vote should be delete or merge somewhere. I don't much care where. In January 2020 I merged this into Mickey Cohen, where it remained until a few weeks ago. In any event at the current time the consensus is clearly not to keep the article in its current form, and a "no consensus" would be a de facto "keep." Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- I try, subtlety, to nudge the discussion along, Coretheapple. I'm trying to read the room. THe primary thing a closer needs to avoid is introducing their own opinion in the closure. Also, "No consensus" simply means that there is no agreement in the discussion it doesn't equate to "Keep". I've seen discussions closed as No consensus return for future visit to AFD, it's more likely than when they close as Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's my feeling as well. Perhaps my !vote should be delete or merge somewhere. I don't much care where. In January 2020 I merged this into Mickey Cohen, where it remained until a few weeks ago. In any event at the current time the consensus is clearly not to keep the article in its current form, and a "no consensus" would be a de facto "keep." Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- As a standalone article. As of now, there is no clear consensus to make the content therein completely disappear, which is what happens as a result of the deletion process. As stated above, I am in favor of including the general information in the Mickey Cohen article. However, that does not mean I agree that there ever was a Cohen crime family per se. It just means that I think the people who worked for and with Cohen should be included in his article in some form, whether via prose or a list. StonyBrook babble 18:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- But that's my point. There is a clear consensus at this time that it not remain. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think Liz was only trying to encourage a stronger attempt at achieving consensus. Simply pointing out that there is currently no consensus about what to do with an article does not imply that it is worth keeping, only that the default result is that it will remain, for now. StonyBrook babble 17:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Fixing what I believe is your concern. Also I am puzzled by your comment about a possible no consensus close, which I believe would be tantamount to keeping. If only one !vote is for keep, the consensus is not to keep. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like this is a duplicate vote. Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with nominator that merger serves no useful purpose. If you must merge for some reason, merge to Mickey Cohen. 108.176.17.98 (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aside from one editor advocating Keep, it looks like opinion is divided between Delete and Merge which might result in a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as the entire topic - there being this crime family is dubious, and appears to be original research.Cortador (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Heart de Roommate (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. Single note posing as a reference. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGAMES. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
WeakKeep: Found contemporary coverage of the game in Russian here.[4] There also seems to be a non-zero amount of coverage regarding this game's remaster, such as here (Brazilian),[5], here,[6] and a rather girthy review here.[7], which could probably be conglomerated into this article (that doesn't seem to have been updated at all to reflect this remaster's release). While it's no excuse if these articles don't win you over, I'd also like to mention that this is a relatively obscure 20 year old Japanese game with pornographic content, so finding contemporary sources regarding the game's original release, while possible, will likely require more effort than a casual skim on Google and Archive.org. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- Extra comment: It seems that a subsidiary of Akella, a Russian games publisher, officially published Heart de Roommate in Russia in the mid-2000s, complete with an English-to-Russian TL. (Russian)[8] This would be another avenue to seek out coverage of this game. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I've added three review citations to the article; one is from the Russian gaming magazine Strana Igr, one is from the J-List blog (appears to only be a blog in name; the website has multiple writers and editorial oversight), and one is from HonestGamers' Jason Venter (whose contributions to HonestGamers are generally recognized as reliable, see [9]). I also added information about the remaster, along with a reference from the Brazilian digital magazine GameBlast to substantiate it. This is far from perfect, but I believe it should be enough to meet WP:GNG, and I feel much better about voting Keep. As I found these with only an hour or two of scrounging around the internet, I'm confident I could find more domestic coverage of this game as well. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mossad. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Katsa (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 merge into Mossad. This is just the Mossad version of a case officer, which every intelligence agency has. Every linguistic variant of the same concept does not need a separate article. The term of "Katsa" is not notable on its own. The article's sourcing refers to katsas who are in Mossad departments covered in the organization's article. No need for a separate article here. Longhornsg (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to hear more opinions in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Mossad. As the nominator mentions, there's no need for a separate article on this, and no real indication of standalone notability. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 22:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If interested, begin a Merge/Redirect discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Randal Alexander McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim (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)
Nobleman from the peerage of Ireland, but without enough SIGCOV to justify a standalone article: fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG. BEFORE didn't turn up more sources than what is in the article, see the source assessment below.
Being a Deputy Lieutenant (DL) isn't particularly useful to assert notability either, since they are subordinates to the ceremonial county's Lord-Lieutenant, "an honorary titular position usually awarded to a retired notable person in the county"
. In past AFDs, several biographies carrying the honorary title of DL resulted in deletion (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir James Stronge, 2nd Baronet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Birdwood, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander Herbert Roff Newton). If it were newsworthy, one would expect some sort of coverage related to this, but it doesn't seem appear to exist in this specific case.
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Peter W. Hammond (1998), The Complete Peerage. | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
Marie Louise McConville, Earl of Antrim's funeral to take place in Glenarm next week, The Irish News, 6 August 2021, accessed 3 July 2022 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
Burke's Peerage, vol. 1 (1999), p. 90 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
"DUNLUCE, Viscount" in Lucy Hume, ed., Debrett's People of Today (London: Debrett's, 2017), p. 1882 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
" The Earl of Antrim, highcouncilofclandonald.com, accessed 3 July 2022 | ![]() |
![]() |
✘ No | |
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/pams-people-artist-hector-mcdonnell-sees-big-picture/31133678.html | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
Richard Pococke, John McVeagh, Richard Pococke's Irish Tours (Irish Academic Press, 1995), p. 212 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
Mark Bence-Jones, Burke's Guide to Country Houses: Volume I, Ireland (1978), p. 135 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
"DUNLUCE , Viscount Randal Alexander St John McDonnell" in Sara Foster, Zoe Gullen, eds., Debrett's People of Today (London: Debrett's, 2002), p. 568 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
"New Members appointed to the board of The Royal Parks", Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, accessed 28 July 2022 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
Deputy Lieutenant Commissions, The Belfast Gazette, 31 January 2014, Notice ID: B-7586-1 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
Kathleen O'Sullivan, "Glenarm Forest is NI’s first accredited QCC forest conservation project", agriland.co.uk, 9 November 2021, accessed 3 July 2022 | ![]() |
✘ No | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
- Note: A previous iteration of this article was deleted after a AfD discussion last year. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randal McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim. Pilaz (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. Pilaz (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Clear WP:ATD is a redirect/merge to Earl of Antrim. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- No objection to redirecting to Earl of Antrim from me. Pilaz (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, as I see enough for compliance with the WP:GNG. I do not agree with the table on Debrett's People of Today, which is surely a reliable secondary source, or Agriland, which is an important agricultural publisher (see here). I would not say that article has only a "passing mention", as it is about a project by Dunluce. Other sources help to provide significant coverage collectively. The GNG is of course not about importance, but I doubt if many Deputy Lords Lieutenant of counties are non-notable. Moonraker (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Debrett's is a tertiary source, as confirmed by this RSN discussion. Its main problem is the lack of SIGCOV of the Earl (DOB, parents and children are routine info). The argument that a person can inherit notability from a project is a typical WP:NOTINHERITED argument and is not grounded in policy, and I don't know how you can trust a publication that calls the current Earl the "15th Earl of Antrim". Besides, he only gets a namecheck. Significant coverage needs to be more than a trivial mention. Pilaz (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- New sources added from Spear's Wealth Management Survey and The Waterlow Stock Exchange Yearbook, providing significant coverage of his city career. On your link, Pilaz, with the greatest respect, a discussion led by you which is about a different publication isn't an authority on Debrett's People of Today, you may like to review that article. Moonraker (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the addition. Spear's Wealth Management Survey doesn't help meet the GNG since it just seems to paraphrase Dunluce's workplace bioblurb in length and content (i.e. the reference to the "over 25 years" in the first sentence of both bioblurbs), which means Spear's blurb about McDonnell/Dunluce has independence problems from the subject. Secondly, it's not secondary: a secondary source, as defined in WP:NOR, ought to
provide thought and reflection based on primary sources
, of which there is none here. That's because Spear's acts as a tertiary source whose stated goal is to be a "guide" to private client advisers. I also don't think this kind of information is SIGCOV, but others can chime in on this. - The Waterlow Stock Exchange Yearbook is another yearbook, meaning it's also a tertiary source and is likely to not feature much beyond "contact information for over 1,000 advisers and a list of their corporate clients" [10]. So, not secondary, and although I don't have access to his entry, almost certainly no SIGCOV in there (paper and ink are expensive). Wikipedia is not a directory, so I don't think using other directories makes for a great argument that the subject is notable. Pilaz (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- As for Debrett's People of Today, it acted in the same way as Who's Who, by asking biographees to provide their own biographical entries and update them each year [11] [12]. Entries cannot be independent from the subject if they are written by the subject themselves. And, again, not secondary, so no thoughts or reflection on the material presented. Pilaz (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the addition. Spear's Wealth Management Survey doesn't help meet the GNG since it just seems to paraphrase Dunluce's workplace bioblurb in length and content (i.e. the reference to the "over 25 years" in the first sentence of both bioblurbs), which means Spear's blurb about McDonnell/Dunluce has independence problems from the subject. Secondly, it's not secondary: a secondary source, as defined in WP:NOR, ought to
- Note: on "15th Earl of Antrim", it's common for peerages to have disputed numbering, when they have been created more than once for the same family. In this case "15th" is arrived at by counting from 1620 instead of 1785. Moonraker (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)- Keep as the article looks well sourced. However, I wouldn't oppose merging this article into Earl of Antrim in a "Present peer" section, as is done at Marquess of Anglesey. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- estar8806, two questions: which reliable secondary sources provide in-depth coverage to help meet the GNG? And what information would you merge from the current article into a "present peer" section? Pilaz (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think Estar8806 has put forward a reasonable proposal. If other users think that the article cannot be a standalone page, then it's better to redirect it to the page that covers all his predecessors. Keivan.fTalk 23:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please have a discussion on the article talk page about a possible Rename. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dangerous & Offensive Trades (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)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet notability criteria, unclear if this is an actual discrete category that multiple laws fall under rather than a common phrase. Kazamzam (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. Kazamzam (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. JoeNMLC (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Not just in India, but elsewhere in Commonwealth, this is a term for companies that produce bad smells as part of producing animal byproducts. Many more references here. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and move to Dangerous and offensive trades without predjudice to further moves. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. This topic has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. In addition to the numerous statutes in many countries that have inherited English law because they were formerly part of the Empire, Stephen's Commentaries says that "dangerous and offensive trades" are part of the English common law of public nuisance: [13]. There are a large number of English and Anglo-American law books that have offensive or dangerous or noxious trades or businesses or manufactures as a form of public nuisance: [14] [15] [16] [17]. The precise language varies between different legal writers, but they are talking about the same thing. The said commonwealth etc statutes look like a restatement, codification or reform of the common law of nuisance. James500 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)- keep AS @James500 and @Лисан аль-Гаиб say this is a widespread theme in laws in the Commonwealth and laws regulating noxious trades exist in many, many countries today.
- The article was in a sorry state, and as much as I dislike WP:TNT as a proposal I almost suggested it. Instead I've added some meat to the article, reduced the India-focus. As it stands it's barely encyclopedic but certainly enough to pass deletion. More hands would help.
- As far as rename, my impression is that the more common term is "offensive trades" but I don't have stats to back that up.
- Oblivy (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Jean-Philippe Aumasson (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 establishment of notability using WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Cryptocurrency, Mathematics, Computing, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Far from my area but notability should be examined under WP:PROF; this appears to be his GS profile [18] with top citations 418,360,357,276,244 and a further two papers over 200 citations and a total of ten papers over 100 citns. There's a fairly low total number of papers though and his PhD only dates from 2009. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Soft delete (treat like expired PROD). Cannot find enough evidence that this passes WP:PROF, but far enough outside my main areas of expertise to have a good sense of what passes or doesn't in this field. Only weighing in since this has two relistings and needs some direction. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I understand that AFDs about similar subjects have closed with a deletion but I see a consensus to Keep on this one and no support for deletion besides the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ben Driebergen (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)
I could not fathom how else this person is notable besides winning Survivor: Heroes vs. Healers vs. Hustlers. Sure, he also appeared in Survivor: Winners at War, but he didn't win the season, and his gameplay hasn't received coverage outside recaps, especially by Entertainment Weekly. Also, he was medically evacuated twice in The Challenge: USA and The Challenge: World Championship. Outside Survivor, I don't see how else he is notable for his other activities, and I don't think medical evacuations from The Challenge would suffice, would it?
WP:PAGEDECIDE should apply if neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E does. Furthermore, should be redirected to (preferably) Survivor: Heroes vs. Healers vs. Hustlers or (alternatively) List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Television, Military, and Idaho. George Ho (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. I’m of the opinion that survivor winners are notable per se, but that in addition to his appearance in 40 perhaps the most important season and on other shows, in addition to being a marine and being a PTSD activist. I will boost article with more secondary sources but BD simply is a notable figure in American reality tv. Volvlogia (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I’m of the opinion that survivor winners are notable per se
Sorry, Volvlogia, but at least ten (or more) articles about individual winners have been redirected per AFD discussions. Same for the Survivor: Panama winner. Furthermore, two articles about the winners of Survivor: Island of the Idols and Survivor: Marquesas have been deleted. Also, being PTSD-diagnosed can be already mentioned in the season page that mentions his win. George Ho (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)- I disagree firmly with those deletions and anticipate their reversals. Volvlogia (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wanna know the names of admins who made those decisions? You may contact them for reversal. Why anticipating? George Ho (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm able to articulate expectations without taking immediate actions to realize them. The long arc of the universe bends toward survivor winners. Why the snarky tone? My focus remains on BD, who is notable enough for a wikipedia article. Volvlogia (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize for making you perceive my tone to be... "snarky". That's not my intention. I was frustrated by repeated assumptions from others that being a one-time Survivor winner makes one person notable. Those assumptions were countered by AFD discussions, yet I see one like this lately. If I failed to convince you this time that my tone wasn't "snarky", then... whatevs.
- Anyways, in this case, merely reappearing in Winners at War has been proven insufficient, which led two articles into being redirected. Furthermore, being medically evacuated from The Challenge didn't save another article from being deleted. I'm not confident that both reappearing and two medical evacuations would suffice, especially for someone suffering from PTSD, but I can't change your mind further. Oh well.... George Ho (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- All I have left to add is that if the consensus is as you say it is, then I respectfully dissent. Volvlogia (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm able to articulate expectations without taking immediate actions to realize them. The long arc of the universe bends toward survivor winners. Why the snarky tone? My focus remains on BD, who is notable enough for a wikipedia article. Volvlogia (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wanna know the names of admins who made those decisions? You may contact them for reversal. Why anticipating? George Ho (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree firmly with those deletions and anticipate their reversals. Volvlogia (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. I’m of the opinion that survivor winners are notable per se, but that in addition to his appearance in 40 perhaps the most important season and on other shows, in addition to being a marine and being a PTSD activist. I will boost article with more secondary sources but BD simply is a notable figure in American reality tv. Volvlogia (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep article Not only Survivor winner, a controversial one who appeared again and also appeared on other shows (The Challenge for example). He is a notable reality TV personalityThecheeseistalking99 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More participation here would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The relevant notability guideline is WP:NACTOR. Our threshold, accordingly, is
significant roles in multiple notable [...] television shows
. I'm not sure that being a contestant in a reality TV show is necessarily a significant role for the purposes of applying this guideline. However, in this specific case, it probably is, considering also that the two shows had only 18 and 20 contestants, respectively. I think we can somewhat safely say that NACTOR is fulfilled. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 22:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC) - Keep per Actualcpscm. Dfertileplain (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- MultiBank 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)
Paid article, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. – bradv 16:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Can't find anything relevant on my end either. Best was an interview. No comment on the CU stuff, obviously. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Lacking WP:CORPDEPTH and there's no way you can build a decent encyclopaedia entry from press releases and Nasdaq listings.Expressive101 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Marco Scherbaum (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)
I request the deletion of the Wikipedia article about Marco Scherbaum. Reasons: It is an obvious marketing article. The person concerned is an average businessman (insurance broker) with no regional nor national relevance. In addition, he advertises with fancy titles ("European Senator"), which derive from the membership of a private association (Europäischer Wirtschaftssenat e. V.), but may give the impression of being an official title/legit political position. By mentioning on Wikipedia, this impression becomes reinforced and, if necessary, legitimized. The German Wiki's article has already been deleted for these reasons.--BancoBank (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Not 100% sure though, there's quite a few sources. Idk if they're WP:PRIMARY though, I'm guessing quite a few of them would be. Seems like a puff piece. There's not really any reasoning in the article as to why he is notable. Google shows up nothing that's a reliable source. If someone can give a summary of the German wiki deletion discussion, that would be useful. MarkiPoli (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Germany. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Tiffany Smith (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:GNG not meet in BLP Endrabcwizart (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Endrabcwizart (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as actor has been involved in a significant number of roles and major television, film, video games productions over the past decade. Why is article marked for deletion? He-guy (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Leaning keep on the strength of a title role in Harry & Meghan: Becoming Royal, which yielded some coverage, and voicework for notable animated characters. BD2412 T 01:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Admittedly not super-notable, but seems to be enough to stick.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Return on event (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 topic. Of the two sources in the article, one's a marketing white paper, while it's just a passing reference in the other. I cannot find any sources that aren't marketing tools themselves. ~TPW 15:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~TPW 15:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence found that this is a concept sufficiently distinct from return on investment to warrant an article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
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! 23:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)- Delete. Sources are lacking and the topic hasn't received enough independent coverage to justify an article.
- Cortador (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing here, or from an internet search, to suggest 'Return on Event' is notable. Appears to be an idea put forward by a small number of agencies and if it warrants mention on Wikipedia at all I'd suggest that would be as part of a wider article on event management and not a standalone article. I note also that the article appears to have been created by an SPA with almost no other contributions and who was blocked shortly after creating this article. Hmee2 (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Jeremy Collins (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)
Notable for winning Survivor: Cambodia. Sure, he debuted with his wife as players of Survivor: San Juan del Sur, but I don't think they're notable for that, especially since neither of them won that season. Neither losing Survivor: Winners at War nor appearing on The Price Is Right helps either. If neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E applies, how about WP:PAGEDECIDE instead?
I seek this article to be redirected to either Survivor: Cambodia (his winning season), Survivor: San Juan del Sur (his debut season), or List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants, either potential target I'm fine with, honestly. George Ho (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and American football. George Ho (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know about the Survivor bit, but he's certainly not notable based on playing in the Professional Indoor Football League. Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as a Survivor winner, then appearing on two other Survivor series and the Price is Right appearance, establish multi-topic notability. A well-known participant in the overall series. Seeing that there are multiple suggesions in the nom for where to "redirect" this, there is nothing broken here and the subject is deserving of his own page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Do you know secondary or tertiary reliable sources verifying his notability other than his Cambodia season win? I have a hard time believing that those TV appearances shall suffice. George Ho (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding multiple suggestions about retargeting this article, I most likely prefer it redirected to Survivor: Cambodia, the season where he won, but I'm also fine with it retargeted to either alternative destination. Furthermore, as already determined, appearing twice or more on TV doesn't sufficiently make one notable. George Ho (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Some coverage exists on the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know what coverage you mean. I see recaps of his three Survivor appearances. Regarding sources, I'm unsure whether coverage is adequate to save this article, notable or not. This magazine article is primarily an interview with this winner. This news article recaps how he played enough to go further and win the game. This news article just covers updates about his family life. Great news honestly, but can it save this biographical article's fate? Can the rest? (Don't get me started on a Twitter post.) George Ho (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep Local coverage [19], here [20], the usual interviews in People [21] and this in Heavy.com [22]. I think with what's already in the article, it's just barely enough.Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- REDIRECT to Survivor: Cambodia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between Redirection and Keeping the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Sources are trivial or routine press release/advertising coverage of someone who was on a notable TV show, not significant coverage of a notable individual. There's no notability directly inherited from the TV show, even if they won it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Well, now it's divided between redirection, keep, and deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Macktheknifeau: As alternative to deletion, to which target do you want the page to redirect? --George Ho (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b and Sportsfan 1234: Do you stand by your "weak keep" votes, or do you have no objections to the page being redirected? If the latter, which destination? --George Ho (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, still a !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think there is enough for an article. There isn't a need to redirect. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Survivor: Cambodia: Sources fails to live up to the needs of the WP:golden rule. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- There is no 'golden rule', you linked to an opinion essay (which is balanced by Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD). I'll link to another essay, WP:RULEOFTHUMB, which also fits this discussion's distribution of editor opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- John C. Evanko (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)
Evanko does not meet notability criteria. Based on the article and potential sources, his "claim to fame" is having been director of a gynecology department where he oversaw a doctor who sexually abused patients (Robert Hadden). This could potentially lead to notability, but none of the sources I could find provide significant coverage of Evanko. I also cannot find significant coverage for notability for academics. Significa liberdade (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. This appears to be intended as an attack page; if Wikipedia is going to cover this issue it should do it in Columbia University or a subpage. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I didn't mean to create an attack page--I was working on documenting a incident and those were the first pages I put up. Sorry! I probably should have created the Hadden page first since I imagine it's worthy of its own page. Massexodus (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! Valid point. I was trying to document a incident that I felt was notable (Hadden molesting more than 245 victims makes him one of the most prolific sexual abusers in New York history) but I did it incorrectly. Massexodus (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The most obvious course would be to try to put a brief well-sourced note in the Columbia University article. ETA There seems to be abundant reliable sourcing that Columbia paid a large settlement, eg [23] in Guardian. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Dr. Evanko has published some interesting papers, as one might expect for a division head at Columbia. See this Google Scholar search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- There's a consensus paper, which wouldn't really count, and one paper with 141 citations, but I'm not seeing anything else? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete WP:BLP1E, WP:SUSPECT. As this is a BLP, I have removed the controversy section for now to avoid further damage. If it is settled that this individual is otherwise independently notable, it may be reinserted with less weight. BrigadierG (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Looking a bit more into it, it appears the Robert Hadden page was twice deleted via discussion. Significa liberdade (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF and should not be used as a WP:COATRACK to publicize someone else's crimes, especially given the deletion of our article on the perpetrator. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Left Front (Bharat) (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 pretty obviuos attempt to circumvent the previous AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Front (India) - only adding a number of factually incorrect statements. What was founded in 1977 where the Left Front (West Bengal) and Left Front (Tripura), no nation-wide alliance. The notion that the now-existent Left Front has merged into INDIA is factually incorrect. Soman (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Change that information which are wrong. NO NEED TO DELETE IT. I had created it as being a prominent alliance in India there is no specific page for Left Front. As mentioned in Class 10 NCERT political science textbook Chapter 5 it was one of the three national alliances in India. George Simon Ohm (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've corrected the informations as you have mentioned. Please go and check them. George Simon Ohm (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is that the wrong information is that a national alliance called "Left Front" existed. And if we remove this factoid, what remains? Clearly you as the creator of the article tried to by-pass the existing AFD outcome for "Left Front (India)" by using "Bharat" in the article title. So I'd say the burden is upon you to argue against the previous AFD outcome. --Soman (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I thought there was something suspicious about this article. Number 57 11:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: I would have nominated it for speedy deletion. Both as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Front (India) and the fact that this is just an umbrella term for all the Left Fronts that have existed on state-level. I saw that the user added in the previously closed discussion and even after seeing it is still arguing on why this article full of misinformation should be kept. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Of relevance to this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral history of the Left Front (India). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete recreation of deleted article + WP:SYNTH. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Saukko (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 dab page needed if it is just two things. A simple hatnote would apply. Llammakey (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - it's three things (a person and two ships). I reinstated a vessel that had been deleted. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep three's a crowd. Skynxnex (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per above, seems like a valid disambig page. - Indefensible (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Melbourne International Festival of Brass (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)
Can't find much in the way of mentions on google apart from WP:CIRCULAR or primary sources, no sources at all cited in article. If someone can find them, I would be happy to not delete. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator comment: Multiple sources were found in the previous AfD, but were never added to the article for some reason even after the decision was to keep the article. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources found in the previous AfD - AFD is not cleanup. Deus et lex (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:NEXIST is quite clear on this matter:
Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article.
The sources from the previous AfD seem to establish notability, and they don't need to be in the article for that. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 10:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:NEXIST. Passes WP:SIGCOV per sources identified in first AFD. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Not sure why this was relisted a second time. This was an inappropriate re-nomination and is an entirely non-controversial close as keep.4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) iMahesh (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Kehkashan Awan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, primarily recognized for secondary roles in only a few movies. The sources provided for the PTV Award are unreliable. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Pakistan. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NACTOR. The subject appeared in significant roles in 2 TV plays which were aired on the national television. The source Daily Jang shows she was a known name back in the 80s. So its reasonable to assume that offline coverage exists. Insight 3 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- How does it comply with WP:NACTOR? As I mentioned in the nomination, she has primarily portrayed secondary characters, whereas WP:NACTOR requires individuals to have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 01:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I put in a lot of effort to find offline sources during WP:BEFORE research, but unfortunately, I came up empty-handed. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- How does it comply with WP:NACTOR? As I mentioned in the nomination, she has primarily portrayed secondary characters, whereas WP:NACTOR requires individuals to have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 01:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep She used to work in dramas in 80s and now she narratives stories. I have added her interviews which she talked about her career and Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV) is a relaible source because it was the first channel in the country and I have taken it from it official website.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC))
- Interviews are considered primary sources; we need secondary independent sources to meet the notability criteria. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. She is a former model back then she used to do modeling during 1980s and 1990s. She now works as Transformation consultant and is a advocate at PSTD also she continues to do promotional appearances for Dhoop Kinare.(192.140.148.96 (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC))
- Keep. Before acting she was a well known model and appeared in many commercials in the 1980s.(2400:ADCC:105:2200:B101:D4DC:489C:7DA9 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC))
- @BeauSuzanne, What we need from you are not quotes or lengthy extended arguments about how she worked before TV drama roles and after TV drama roles. Can you please provide links to three secondary reliable sources that are about Kehkashan Awan herself and meet the criteria laid out at WP:GNG, or link to her significant roles in multiple TV series to meet WP:NACTOR? 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 17:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't write the comment. I am currently looking for other sources about Kehkashan. The off line sources can be found in the books link section.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator has made the best arguments, in favour of deletion, but nobody else agrees with them. More input is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The source[1] has information about her education background and she is advocate of Women's Empowerment and runs a coaching program called The Colour of my Shadow is Pink for women.(2400:ADCC:105:2200:F4D9:D810:B338:ABA8 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC))
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- 2023 Asia Cup statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- 2022 Asia Cup statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2018 Asia Cup statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All these articles are WP:NOTDATABASE violations sourced only to one statistics/database website, ESPNcricinfo. The main articles for these events have the key statistics (top 5 for most runs and most wickets) which is all that's needed for an encyclopedia. These article just include way too much WP:TRIVIA like top partnership by wicket (there will only be a handful of 10th wicket partnerships each tournament, so this isn't at all a meaningful, encyclopedic statistic) Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, Lists, and Asia. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom and WP:NOTSTATS/WP:NOTMIRROR. All easily obtained by looking up ESPNCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per NOTDATABASE. AryKun (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Relevant, notable statistics can go on the main article. If this was a World Cup, you'd might have a better argument for it, but as it stands its WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:TRIVIA MarkiPoli (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE
- FatCat96 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Should be restricted to tables on the main article for the tournament, showing the top five leading run scorers and wicket takers during the competition. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all' Per nom and others. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DSP2092talk
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Aradhya Malhotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Borderline WP:GNG case under WP:BLP. The case for notability seems to be founded on Malhotra's nomination for the Forbes 30 Under 30 list in 2016. One would think this would be quite a strong indicia that he is notable. However, for whatever reason, the only available sources are mostly primary sources being interviews of ([24][25][26][27]) or articles written by the subject ([28] [29]) or about the games and not the subject at all ([30]). Some sources have independence and reliability issues: the Forbes sources are naturally fawning, one is an interview for Malhotra's former college, and another is a podcast interview with a "friend". Further, neither his studio, Skyless Game Studios, nor the games made by that studio, have barely any coverage nor seem to attract their own notability. A WP:BEFORE for sources seems to yield articles with the same problems. The article also seems to have been created by Mr. Malhotra. Appreciate your thoughts. VRXCES (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. VRXCES (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. as per nom Worldiswide (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Nagol0929 (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Avula Parthasarathy (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)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article and cannot find any sources to add. The four existing citations are all to a commercial site connected to this person, vedantaworld. I don't think he meets WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and India. Tacyarg (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep but trim out all the guff. It took a few moments to find an article about him in the New Yorker, I suspect there are a bunch of other RS if one looked a bit harder. JMWt (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per JMWt. A few more sources: [31], [32], [33], [34]. WJ94 (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Withdrawn (as nom). Thank you for finding the New Yorker article. Tacyarg (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blob Tree. ✗plicit 14:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ian Long (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 inventor of the 'Blob Tree', this educator is not inherently notable. Article sourced to owned media (Lulu), no pass of WP:GNG evident from WP:BEFORE, which purely reveals networked vendors of Blob Tree books. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge to Blob Tree - it seems the subject of the page does not have a public profile and hence is not notable. I note that even editors who work on the page have had difficulty verifying basic details, so the fairest thing to do seems, IMO, to redirect until as such time as reliable sources come available to create a properly referenced page. JMWt (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge into Blob Tree seems a good outcome. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Having taken a look, I'd worry about whether Blob Tree passes WP:GNG... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Apologies for these issues, I am responsible for part of this. I must note at least with the Blob Tree page that this went through the articles for creation process and was deemed suitable. I cannot comment on the author Ian Long as strongly however his notability is inheritable precisely from this connection. I appreciate a redirect to the Blob Tree may be suitable at this time, but I do believe there is sufficient information and reputable sources for both pages, they just have not been added so far but instead needing improvement. If others can take the time to gather information and improve this page, it may prove a more helpful result in the long term. Wikijohnword (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand your logic here. Notability specifically is not inherited, the fact that a book he wrote is considered notable does not therefore mean the author is notable. You are welcome to find the RS to show that this person is notable even if the page is deleted at this time, of course. JMWt (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Blob Tree. Entire statement of notability for the author comes from the invention and Blob Tree isn't a Cotton Gin where people have done independent work on the inventor. Nicely written article though, so it should merge nicely into the other article. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Naked Truth (band) (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; not clear why this has been kept despite two previous nominations. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- Delete. The two previous AfD discussions refer to sources named in the first deletion discussion. One source mentioned is the Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music. However, a search on Google Books suggests that the bands only has a single throwaway mention in the entire book. Also mentioned is the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, which mentions the band a single times in what again appears to be a throwaway mentioning without significant coverage of the band. There are three additions mentions of "Naked Truth" or "The Naked Truth", but those appear to be two films from 1957 and 1992, not the band. A user also brought up that the band apparently has released two albums with Sony Records, but I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources confirming that, or indicating notability of those albums. Kerrang, a magazine, apparently covered the band, but I was unable to find the respective article and/or confirm that their coverage there is significant.
- The article received a refimprove tag in 2012, and in that decade, editors have failed to bring up sources that significantly cover the band. This article only seems to be around because of some single-line mentions in two books and .WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES Cortador (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
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 12:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete I looked offline since coverage would predate the internet and found only a Melody Maker review. JSFarman (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 George J. Mitchell. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Mitchell 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)
Fails WP:NORG, of the 6 sources in the article: source 1 is a government database entry, 2 is an income tax exempt form, 3 404 errors but appears to have been an IRS database entry, 4 and 5 are to the org itself and 6 also errors out but appears to have been a flyer for a university, none of these are WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS and a before search turned up empty for this institute showing partial matches for Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and Mitchell Institute for Global Peace. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Maine. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Most recent edits are by bunch of edits by IPs and COI accounts some of which were pasting copyvios, the other edits have been reverting said copyvio, previous edits prior to the IP/COI were three years ago. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to George J. Mitchell There are a couple of hits on GBooks but no SIGCOV. (One of them is Mitchell's memoir). It looks like there's probably enough at least for a mention in the article on Mitchell himself but not a separate article. There is also an organization called the "Mitchell Institute" in Australia which is possibly notable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per Presidentman, seems like a reasonable compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- El Ojo (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 cites seven sources. They are a combination of blogs and novelty sites with no evidence of editorial oversight or fact-checking. Some of them give credence to conspiracy theories about the nature of the island. Since it's not a populated area, it's not covered by WP:GEOLAND, and a BEFORE search turns up no reliable sources. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Argentina and Islands. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I made a source analysis here, on request :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have added some sources to the article, waiting for theleekycauldron's review. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Crum375: some of these are marginally reliable – I don't really like that they're all just near copy/pasting the same content, but were I to assume that the less reliable sources are bottom-feeders, this might pass notability. I'll take a bit more time to re-review, and then we can rebuild the article with the RSes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I have added a few more sources, all of which have a good editorial vetting mechanism and reputation, afaict. Clearly there are too many sources at the moment, so we should definitely cull them after basic notability is established. I'll wait for your review, and would be happy to discard the non-RSes. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: As an update, I have added more sources and started culling the lower quality ones. I think the remaining sources (18 currently) are definitely acceptable WP:RS-wise and WP:N-wise. When you have a chance, take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Crum375: some of these are marginally reliable – I don't really like that they're all just near copy/pasting the same content, but were I to assume that the less reliable sources are bottom-feeders, this might pass notability. I'll take a bit more time to re-review, and then we can rebuild the article with the RSes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have added some sources to the article, waiting for theleekycauldron's review. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence of passing SIGCOV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep notable natural artifact, but should be expanded. UpEpSilon (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you want to Keep this article, please state this in your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Article needs some cleanup, but some of the sources pass WP:GNG and I don't see which WP:NOT applies. SportingFlyer T·C 08:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, article is a notable geographic feature but definitely needs much work and clean up. W.G.J. (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: With the spanish-language sources this seems to pass WP:GNG ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 12:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- George Hakim Jewelers (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)
Lebanese jeweler, signally fails WP:NCORP. Only coverage is routine store opening and 140th anniversary celebration news release. Only possible grounds for notability is longevity, but that longevity has been spent doing nothing whatsoever remarkable, impactful or in any other way notable. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lebanon. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/955756/george-hakim-140-annees-precieuses.html
- https://www.arabnews.com/news/560416 Superanon78 (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Do not delete - There are at least two sources containing independent content showing in-depth information on the company, posted in the links above. These count towards establishing notability, as they represent sources that are completely unaffiliated to the subject. Superanon78 (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Both articles are puff pieces. The first article (marking 140 years in business) is regurgitated spin with phrases like "fruit d'un atelier d'artisans minutieux au service d'une clientèle internationale" or "Aventurier, ambitieux et décidé, il n'y aura pour lui aucune frontière à sa volonté de découvrir des diamants, rubis, saphirs, émeraudes et autres." Check out other publications which contain practically the same "messaging" such as this promotional piece in "A" magazine or this Lebanese guide. The second source is regurgitated PR with phrases like ""Later in the evening, the ribbon was cut, and George Hakim was officially instated as a new, sparkling jewel in Geneva’s crown" and "The name George Hakim has become synonymous with high-end design and exquisite craftsmanship, with its qualitative, unique gems sourced from all over the world, and elegantly finished in the hands of expert craftsmen and artisans". Both sources fail to demonstrate an iota of "Independent Content" that isn't fawning regurgitated PR. HighKing++ 09:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. With an unbolded Keep, this can't be closed as Soft Deletion. So more opinions would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: I've tried a general search and one limited to .lb sites, most are press releases or confirmation that they're present at Dubai Fashion Week. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Mark Pearlman (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. Promotional in nature and references are suspect. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 6. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 06:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Article has existed since 2009 and appears adequately referenced to confirm notability. I removed hyperlinks. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Massachusetts. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Prob Delete - I could be wrong because a) my searches are not coming up with much due to several people having the same name and b) the sources on the page being IMO pretty poor. However, my guess is that the coverage is weak. I'm open to changing my mind if a keep !voter shows me some sources that unambiguously meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I concur with JMWt's reasoning. The referencing relies heavily on non-RS, such as podcasts on iTunes and PR, as well as the subjects own work. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like a resume, don't see the SIGCOV in RS needed to establish N. Fails GNG Jacona (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JAG characters#Lieutenant, Junior Grade Meg Austin, USN (JAGC). Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Meg Austin (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 character in cancelled TV series, redirect - the AtD - removed, so here we are. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Military, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Non notable character, fails GNG and fails WP:NCHAR. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: per Nagol0929. Does not have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to List of JAG characters, per WP:ATD. Obviously the link should exist, and freestanding notability is not required for a redirect. BD2412 T 01:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of JAG characters#Lieutenant, Junior Grade Meg Austin, USN (JAGC). As User:BD2412 states above, this is an appropriate alternative to deletion. It is very likely readers will search for this character, and while the role doesn't have the clear claim to notability to justify a freestanding article, redirects are cheap. Redirecting will also preserve the edit history on this article should it later achieve stand-alone status. Jacona (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect as per Jacona. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- William Thornton (immigrant) (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:NOTGENEALOGY. Much of the content is padding on background history - without that, there is not much on the man himself, and virtually all of that is genealogy or run-of-the-mill property transactions. Ingratis (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC).
- This is so frustrating, but I can't see any alternative to delete for this beautiful piece of extended original research by multiple editors who can clearly write well, and have done their work to make sure their facts are correct. The only secondary sources to which the article refers are backing up generic statements such as the number of people living in an area; all of the information related to the man himself is from primary historical research that should be published somewhere. We, as an encyclopaedia, are supposed to pick up on those secondary publications, not run our own genealogical history journal. I suggested a few weeks ago a new namespace for non-encyclopaedic but accurate and interesting information, and this would have been a candidate. This article needs to exist in the world, but Wikipedia isn't its proper home until all this history has been published somewhere else. Elemimele (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Your argument is valid taking into account the article in its present iteration. The article has been extended by additional editors moving focus further away from the subject to a broader narrative on Virginia history. The article should be edited down to the original version which focused purely on known facts of William Thornton and why this individual has historical significance. The significance is in part as a noted colonizer in 17th century Virginia but also as the founding member of family that has contributed greatly to the development of the United States over successive generations. That foundation (as is often the case with most immigrant settlers) provided the economic and cultural capital for the successive generations.
- Encyclopedias are by definition and design supposed to provide concise narratives on many subjects to give a point of reference but not necessarily deep understating of each of the topics within the context of world we live in (which is everything). The original paired down version should be on Wikipedia as Wikipedia by design is a comprehensive encyclopedia of all subject matters. "Genealogical" and "run-of-the-mill property transactions" constitute a significant amount of understanding of many individuals of note throughout history. The majority of Mayflower passengers are only known through land transactions, statistical references in William Bradford's diary and in some instances court cases.
- Rather than delete, the community should be editing the article to it's original intention. Deletion would set a precedent for deleting many thousands of article that provide a point of reference in the intended purpose of Wikipedia. Articles should be deleted when they provide false information or of erroneous subjects but the logic for completely deleting the subject matter lacks academic merit. Poundisford (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is not much is going to be left. The only secondary reference is (4), which says we don't know who he married. Yes, of course run-of-the-mill property transactions contribute a significant amount of understanding: they are the raw materials with which historians work. But the point is that we're supposed to report the outcome of the historians' work, not be the historians. We should be sourcing this article to Prof. Smith who wrote a book describing his/her studies of those property transactions, not sourcing to the transactions ourselves, and if there is no Prof. Smith, and no book, we're going to struggle. Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is so frustrating, but I can't see any alternative to delete for this beautiful piece of extended original research by multiple editors who can clearly write well, and have done their work to make sure their facts are correct. The only secondary sources to which the article refers are backing up generic statements such as the number of people living in an area; all of the information related to the man himself is from primary historical research that should be published somewhere. We, as an encyclopaedia, are supposed to pick up on those secondary publications, not run our own genealogical history journal. I suggested a few weeks ago a new namespace for non-encyclopaedic but accurate and interesting information, and this would have been a candidate. This article needs to exist in the world, but Wikipedia isn't its proper home until all this history has been published somewhere else. Elemimele (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. KEEP As reported in the article William Thornton was a vestryman, while this is not explained in the article, and while a parochial position, this was a leadership position, whose duties in our modern times are now conducted by local, state and national officials. It was one of those postions that gave the colonists the experience to govern themselves. This alone makes him "notable."
- I was saddened to see that original research to correct incorrect secondary sources is given as a reason to eliminate the article. I could provide a bibliography of the articles and books written, however they are dated and in many cases wrong. This wrong information keeps getting passed from person to person. This could be a place where the record could be set straight in a well sourced article on William Thornton.
- William Thornton is also the ancestor of many notable descendants. Information about him may provide insight about them. Or in the alternative information about him may explain, why his descendants became "notable."
- The information about what was happening in the broader context was to inform William Thornton's life. He was a risk taker, always moving to the edge of the civilized parts of Virginia, leading to his success eventually being elevated to the vestry and providing the where with all for his sons to continue the upward progression of this family in colonial Virginia. This is not an article reciting a list of deeds. Land meant economic prosperity and the way to provide for one's family.
- I have reviewed this discussion and the deletion policy and I am still confused by why this article has been marked for deletion. Understanding policies are necessary, I asked they be waived for this profile for the reasons stated.
- Finally, I may be, too naive, to think that anyplace can stop William Thornton's loving descendants from recording their family mythology that gives them comfort about their "famous" ancestor. Just today, I deleted the coat-of-arms on his profile that he did not have. People hate gaps in information and I deleted the guesses about his wife/wives that many want for him, but have no basis in contempory sources, though supported by multiple unsourced articles and books. Recent DNA evidence has shown even more of this Thornton mythology is incorrect.
- Note: I cannot vouch for the accuracy of anything in "Historical places and estates" nor "Notable descendants of William Thornton." My interest was this man, who someone else got credit for bringing to Virgina, who moved to the edge of "civilized" Virginia, was successful in gaining land, and became a leader in his community. I also must admit I am not watching this article and if I had not been invited, I would have had no idea it was marked for deletion. I also did not know until I visited the profile today that William had been given a coat-of-arms. Rictobin (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please keep comments concise and focused on policy, notability and sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete due to WP:TNT. We simply cannot have pages on en.wp that are full of guesswork and WP:OR. I think there may be a fair point that this guy was an important historical figure, if so someone can rewrite the page stating only the facts. All the other stuff can be discussed elsewhere on a genealogical forum. Other parts of the page may be better addressed on wikidata (such as all the ancestors and related places). Because en.wiki is not a forum or a soapbox or a place where you can present your original research showing how primary sources got things wrong. That's it. Write a stub with the inarguable facts. Everything else here is unencyclopedic, I'm afraid. JMWt (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: @Rictobin, if this content is not suitable for Wikipedia, might it be appropriate for Family History Research Wiki or WikiTree? You've put a lot of work into this.
- Delete There doesn't really seem to be that much in terms of reliable secondary referencing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Orlando Phantoms (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 amateur football team. League isn't even notable enough for an article, so can't redirect. No independent sourcing located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Florida. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. No suitable redirect target, since the league they play in doesn't have an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, fails notability. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG.I would support the creation of a page for the Amateur to Professional Developmental Football League and redirecting to that target, but there is little SIGCOV on the league as a whole and there would be a good chance that page find its way to AFD as well. Frank Anchor 16:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- changed to keep. The 2-part source from CBL62 and the source posted by Randy Kryn are sufficient to pass GNG. Frank Anchor 10:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Others voting delete may know more about this league's lack of notability (I am not familiar with it myself), but the Phantoms seem to have received some SIGCOV. E.g., this, this (part 1/part 2). Cbl62 (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, meets WP:GNG per Cbl62's sources as well as many others available on any search engine, particularly around Kyle Farnsworth's many years playing for the team (for example, see this Sporting News story). Well sourced articles about semi-pro teams, especially ones which win so many championships in their leagues, deserve an article as much as any pro teams. BTW, Wikipedia is a semi-pro encyclopedia. Go Phantoms! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I do not find the sources provided thus far to be enough to establish notability.
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Port Charlotte Sun | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Orlando Sentinel part 1, part 2 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Sporting News | ![]() |
![]() |
? The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer in-depth detail. Is primarily about Kyle Farnsworth. | ✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
- Please ping me if better sources are found. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The credibility of this chart is undermined given the assertion that a 26-paragraph, multi-column feature story focused entirely on the team does not count toward GNG. It has some quotes, like any well-written feature story, but it is not simply an interview; indeed, less than a third of the massive content consists of quotes. Cbl62 (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I struggle to find anything from that source that isn't directly attributed to The Phantoms. 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. This source offers none of that and simply repeats what The Phantoms describe themselves as. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, it is not accurate to assert that the article from Sporting News (a major national player) only mentions the Phantoms briefly. To the contrary, there is a long passage that is all about the Phantoms and doesn't even mention Farnsworth:
Torres has owned and managed the Phantoms since 2011. He first went to an FFA practice that year at the request of a friend, and there were players smoking cigarettes on the sideline. Torres played football in high school and a little bit in arena and semi-pro leagues after that, and just wanted to help somebody. Even though the players are unpaid, Torres said the organizations are in the red every year. "I’m happy helping people get somewhere,” Torres said. “I’ll never remember how much money I had. But I'll remember the people." Torres took the organization and built it into much more. There are three types of players it serves — those looking to get into college, those looking to play in arena leagues, Canada or even the NFL, and those who just want to see if they can play football at a competitive level.
- Cbl62 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- To me those are pretty clearly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. I'm not sure that extremely limited information provided about the team satisfies WP:DEPTH. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- A 26-paragraph feature story is a trivial mention? Might as well shut down Wikipedia, as millions of pages have just become null and void. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was referring to the Sporting News content that Cbl62 quoted. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The 26-paragraph story also is not counted as a GNG source in your chart, which is what I was referring to. As for sources, there are many more than previously mentioned when binging "Kyle Farnsworth" and "Orlando Phantoms", including out of CBS in Detroit. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The "26-paragraph" Sentinel piece is not counted for a different reason, obviously it has significant coverage. But that CBS story is even more of a trivial mention than Sporting News. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- FormalDude -- You lose all credibility when you claim that a 26-paragraph article from a major media outlet focused entirely on the Phantoms (and consisting of < 33% quotes) is just "an interview" and thus not independent. As for the Sporting News piece, it is a closer call, but it is simply not accurate to assert, as you did, that this is only a brief mention. There is, in fact, some depth to the coverage of the team: it (i) identifies the team's owner and (ii) discusses his background in football, (iii) discusses the length of his ownership, (iv) discusses the unpaid status of players, (v) provides the team's financial results (in the red every year), and (vi) reviews the various types of players attracted to the team and their motivations. Cbl62 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's not just because it's an interview, it's because the whole thing is a puff piece regurgitating the Phantoms with promotional content like:
According to the mission of the Orlando Phantoms, their goal is to develop players who can go abroad to play professionally in the United States, while the team encourages its members to obtain a degree, focus on their families and support each other.
- I will admit that the SIGCOV of the Sporting News piece is up for debate, but so is its independence. I've adjusted my source assessment table accordingly. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The "puff piece" is a full feature interview in a major newspaper and independent of the team. Please adjust your chart accordingly, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The 26-paragraph story also is not counted as a GNG source in your chart, which is what I was referring to. As for sources, there are many more than previously mentioned when binging "Kyle Farnsworth" and "Orlando Phantoms", including out of CBS in Detroit. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- A 26-paragraph feature story is a trivial mention? Might as well shut down Wikipedia, as millions of pages have just become null and void. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Cbl62 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
the whole thing is a puff piece regurgitating the Phantoms with promotional content
I still haven't yet voted "keep" or "delete" (as this is a close call on GNG), but your continuing efforts to throw out a 26-paragraph feature story from an independent, reliable source are beyond a stretch. If this were mere regurgitation of a team's press release, you would have a point, but that's not what this is. The article reveals that the author conducted multiple interviews with management and players and then wrote the story distilled from all of the interviews and his own independent synthesis of the facts. That is what sports journalism is all about. The fact that the article delves into some inspirational elements (rehabilitation of players on probation, surviving violent incidents, immigrants and working class guys playing for love of the game) shows the depth of coverage and does not undercut the independence of the source. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)- I don't see "independent synthesis of the facts" in the Sentinel article. Can you point to any part that isn't directly attributed to The Phantoms or their staff? ––FormalDude (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The article on its face reflects that the author interviewed numerous players and team officials to collect as much information about the team. He then wrote a 26-paragraph, two-page feature story about the team. Less than one-third of the article consists of direct quotes from team officials. The remainder consists of the author's synthesis of the facts that he collected during his interviews and research. That's the nature of reporting -- (i) go out and find/collect facts, (ii) decide which facts are significant to your story, and (iii) weave facts together in a compelling or interesting narrative to tell the story. That's what synthesis and reporting are all about. The opposite would be a situation where the writer simply repeats/regurgitates a pre-prepared or canned press release or other piece written by the team -- that's not what this is. Am I missing something? Cbl62 (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- It seems like you're saying no matter how much content is non-independent, it doesn't matter because it was put together by a reliable journalist. That is not the case, a source has to be independent AND reliable to count towards notability.
- You seem to be evading my simple request to provide any part of the source that isn't directly attributed to The Phantoms or their staff. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- The article on its face reflects that the author interviewed numerous players and team officials to collect as much information about the team. He then wrote a 26-paragraph, two-page feature story about the team. Less than one-third of the article consists of direct quotes from team officials. The remainder consists of the author's synthesis of the facts that he collected during his interviews and research. That's the nature of reporting -- (i) go out and find/collect facts, (ii) decide which facts are significant to your story, and (iii) weave facts together in a compelling or interesting narrative to tell the story. That's what synthesis and reporting are all about. The opposite would be a situation where the writer simply repeats/regurgitates a pre-prepared or canned press release or other piece written by the team -- that's not what this is. Am I missing something? Cbl62 (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see "independent synthesis of the facts" in the Sentinel article. Can you point to any part that isn't directly attributed to The Phantoms or their staff? ––FormalDude (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more opinions since there is such a difference of opinion regarding these sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- A couple sources I found: WFTV, WESH, Ivanhoe News. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The WFTV piece appears to be SIGCOV in a reliable source. Not so much on the other two. If I was forced to decide, I'd lean toward keeping based on all the sources found. Cbl62 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the new sources, and would like to point out that there has been some good faith but questionable individual canvassing out and about, so maybe it's time to close this and keep this well-sourced page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- @FormalDude: That type of targeted notification seems like blatant canvasing to me. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to meet all the criteria of WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- How? There's four possibilities mentioned as being appropriate notifications for users:
Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
– nope;Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
– I can't recall scope creep having been involved in related discussions – and he himself stated in response to your notification "I don't know much ... about sports in general";Editors known for expertise in the field
– clearly not per his aforementioned reply; andEditors who have asked to be kept informed
– I don't think he's asked to be informed about these discussions, let me know if I'm wrong. Also note that I was recently accused of CANVASSING for notifying actually relevant users who clearly met at least three of the four criteria. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)- Well first off those possibilities are just common examples, they are not the only scenarios that editors are permitted to give talk page notifications. In the chart in the next section it says that a notification is appropriate if its scale is a limited posting, the message is neutral, the audience is non-partisan, and the transparency is open. I've met those four criteria.
- I would also say it meets the two examples of editors who participated in related topics and editors known for expertise in their field, as Scope creep has participated in numerous discussions about organizations and has a lot of knowledge about the policies surrounding them, so I thought they may have valuable feedback. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- That really doesn't make sense because WP:ORG explicitly states: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of ... sports teams." Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- My mistake, I didn't know that. I can see the cause for concern, but I assure you I had no intentions of canvassing. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- That really doesn't make sense because WP:ORG explicitly states: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of ... sports teams." Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- How? There's four possibilities mentioned as being appropriate notifications for users:
- It seems to meet all the criteria of WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- @FormalDude: That type of targeted notification seems like blatant canvasing to me. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - borderline case but subject has enough coverage to support on notability for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As I see it, this hinges on the usability of the lengthy sentinel source. There are bad arguments on both sides about it; length alone does not make a reliable source usable, it does need to have independent content; but conversely, the presence of quotes and attributed content does not imply that independent content does not also exist. Additional opinions on all the sources, but the Sentinel source in particular, would be helpful in determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- In response to the relisting comment. In the lengthy Sentinel source, I see at the very minimum, 200+ words of SIGCOV about the team. The journalist wrote a secondary synthesis of the interviews as a multi-paragraph summary at the start of the article that includes the player's pasts and expectations, in the context of their membership of the team, with some explanation of the team. These are neither individually attributed within the summary nor attributed to any team representative, but rather it is a statement in the voice of the journalist about the players based on several interviews. There's also secondary information on the monetary requirements/donations to the team.
- Beyond that, I see several non-attributed statements interwoven with interviews of members of the team. Regardless of how "puffy" the piece sounds, as is very common for sports journalism, it's not churnalism, as such, unless we have a reason to doubt the publication or the journalist, such non-attributed statements are SIGCOV as well, as we can expect a level of fact-checking. This would push us well above 300 words of SIGCOV on the team, and even more if we count such coverage of individual team members.
- My evaluation is that the source provides SIGCOV of the subject at a standard GNG level. —siroχo 22:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- The WFTV ref should also count towards SIGCOV. I found a couple more refs and edited the article with my vote previously, there might be more out there. - Indefensible (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The existing draft is the same, mooting the need to draftify Star Mississippi 02:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sound Party (2023 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)
Sound Party (2023 film)
This article about an unreleased film was created in article space and then correctly moved to draft space by User:Karnataka as too soon. The originator then contested the draftification by creating another copy of the article in article space. There are three stages of development for films:
- 1. Planned films which have not begun production. These should not have free-standing articles. Sometimes a redirect may be in order, such as to the producer, or the film series.
- 2. Films that have begun production, but have not been released. These films are only notable if production itself has been notable. A passing mention that production has started (or finished) does not establish notability.
- 3. Films that have been released, whether for theatrical viewing, for television, for film festivals, or otherwise. These films are notable based on reception and reviews, or for other reasons.
- This film is in group 2, films that have begun production. The article makes no mention of anything notable about production.
This film is too soon, and the article should be deleted from mainspace. When the film is released, the draft can be updated and resubmitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify as the film may get reliable reviews upon release. DareshMohan (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Draftify per DareshMohan. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- @Liz: I have struck my initial !vote, as the pages in draft space and article space appear to be identical. This version should be deleted per BD2412. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I tried to close this as Draftify but there is already an article in Draft space so having two would be inappropriate. So, do you want that one deleted in favor of this version? Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, given that it is a duplicate of an existing draft. The duplication itself is the larger problem here. BD2412 T 01:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DD National#1992 to 2010: Competition. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- CID 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)
Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 05:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to DD National: Fails WP:NTV but redirects are WP:CHEAP. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to DD National#1992 to 2010: Competition.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- KCDH-LP (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)
Another non-notable LPTV. How did KCDH-LP have The WB when it was on "KWMB" (via WB 100+)? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Louisiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not sold that this was not notable. To those in the area, it was considered their local access channel and is part of their local history. -- Ktkvtsh (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- This probably requires a newspaper (Winnfield) that we do not have available. Coverage is nonexistent otherwise. Delete. It's not totally unreasonable that The WB was on KCDH in the pre-1998 period, by the way, but nothing is provable about this station. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Without seemingly any WP:SIGCOV, this subject fails all notability guidelines with the current sourcing. If sources can be found, I'd be happy to reconsider my vote. User:Let'srun 03:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete What I could see is this station simulcasting WB100+ primetime on the local cable system as a condition of carriage, but it's doubtful that can be easily confirmed as whatever provided existed then was subsumed into Altice, and there's not much we can prove about this station's existence. Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: if Sammi Brie cannot find the requisite significant coverage to meet the GNG, it probably doesn't exist (at least in any easily-accessible sense). For what it's worth, while the station was listed by FamilyNet (its other claimed network) c. 2010 as having been authorized as an affiliate since 2000, none of the seemingly-contemporary WB affiliate lists I've seen (1995, ~1998) have included anything resembling this station. Even post-1998 carriage of The WB is not impossible: there were a small number of incumbent WB affiliates in these small markets that were not dropped right away (at least in the early days, the intent of WeB/The WB 100+ was to bring The WB to markets with an insufficient number of stations to get an actual affiliate—akin to Foxnet, which unlike WB 100+ was always more of a stopgap that never itself directly precluded a regular Fox affiliate if a station became available—without having to resorting to the WGN national feed carriage also in effect back then), and The WB 100+ did end up with a small number over-the-air affiliates where available in the early 2000s. (In and of itself, none of that is of much if any relevance to notability or the lack thereof, but I figured I'd attempt to tie up that loose end.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Looks like the station really didn't have that much support but yeah, I don't understand the WB thing other than the 1995-2006 thing was false. It would be 1995-1998. Mer764Wiki (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chandramukhi. I don't see a clear consensus here but I'm closing it as Redirect as I don't think it needs a third relisting. If someone feels that it's appropriate to Merge some content, feel free as long as there is attribution. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Chandramukhi (fictional 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)
First and foremost, see Wikipedia:Notability and fiction. This page adds nothing that is not in Chandramukhi or Chandramukhi 2. Most, if not all, of this article is only about the first film. This character is not original because the first film Chandramukhi is a remake of Manichitrathazhu (1993) and Apthamitra (The 2005 Tamil film is a scene-to-scene remake of this 2004 Kannada film by the same director).
Note: This move is a direct response to the consensus at Talk:Chandramukhi_(fictional_character)#Requested move 26 August 2023. Do the originals not matter? See the awards won at Manichitrathazhu#Awards, Shobana#Awards_and_recognitions and Apthamitra#Awards.
For context, watch these two videos [35] and [36]. They came before this [37] which regards the article in question. The article was not written based on those characters since they only had one film appearance which makes me wonder why the third version/second remake version is notable. DareshMohan (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Article is about a well known character in Indian film industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.185.219.179 (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Chandramukhi. No reception section, just casting information. I don't think that's sufficient, casting is more related to the actors/movie. Ditto for awards, it's not like the character won them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: When created, it should've been Nagavalli as that is the O.G. and most notable version. This adds nothing beyond what we already have in Chandramukhi and its sequel. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Chandramukhi, which the article is primarily focused around at the moment. It's pretty clear from the deletion rationale that there's a bit of a content dispute going on here, so if lacking a merge consensus, keep pending a consensus around how to handle the topic. —siroχo 04:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- We already have Chandramukhi (character) which is about a completely different character. Perhaps redirect this to that? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- We can add disambiguation/hatnotes as necessary. —siroχo 05:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- We already have Chandramukhi (character) which is about a completely different character. Perhaps redirect this to that? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: As per nom. Beside, the creator is not P. Vasu, as it is a remake with only the name changed. Now, if someone creates an article for the original Nagavalli who appeared in four films with the same name and portrayed by four actresses, then we will have two articles for the same character.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Known to be a prominent character in the Kollywood film industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavya.Subramaniam (talk • contribs) 06:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Request admins not to consider the views of a sock, whose comments are similar to this IP's here: 101.185.219.179 Kailash29792 (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mushy Yank:@Kailash29792: How about a redirect to Chandramukhi#Production where there exists info/picture about this character?
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Bahari Ibaadat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem notable. References given are not reliable and there is also the WP:REFBOMB - RichT|C|E-Mail 02:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. - RichT|C|E-Mail 02:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. I just pruned the majority of the article as unverifiable or non-neutral. Haven't checked into notability. —siroχo 04:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Generally best not to do that while the article is at AfD, so that participants can get a better idea of the subject's notability (or lack of it). Espresso Addict (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's why I noted it here, but to be clear I haven't removed anything that established notability. —siroχo 22:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Generally best not to do that while the article is at AfD, so that participants can get a better idea of the subject's notability (or lack of it). Espresso Addict (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Afghanistan as WP:ATD. That article is currently a WP:SETINDEX (a type of list), and as such only requires verifiability to include, I've added a reference for such. (I checked notability and was unable to find sources to establish it). —siroχo 07:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I don't think a Redirect to Miss Afghanistan is a good closure decision as it is just a disambiguation page that contains this article on it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)- @Liz, I'm not an expert on the topic, but the page at that title claims to be a WP:set index which is not intended to be a type of disambiguation. This does not appear to have been an annual competition like some, so it may very well be a complete set index, but I'm not sure. —siroχo 03:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article.
- Villon411 (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Liz, I'm not an expert on the topic, but the page at that title claims to be a WP:set index which is not intended to be a type of disambiguation. This does not appear to have been an annual competition like some, so it may very well be a complete set index, but I'm not sure. —siroχo 03:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - couldn't find much in the way of WP:RS. The CNN source [38] looked promising until I realized that it was part iReport initiative, which is user generated and not verified by the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KH-1 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Worldiswide (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bhanjanagar. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Baruda (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)
As written, the original article contained a lot of copyright violations written from a non-neutral point-of-view. I removed a lot of the copyvio, but now, I can't find information about the village from reliable sources, though they may exist. Significa liberdade (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Bhanjanagar: Redirects are WP:CHEAP and this fails GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep it seems to be a census settlement per WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect - per above and WP:NOPAGE. Census tracts aren't presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND, and the only data provided here is purely statistical. FOARP (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning redirect. Would that be okay with the nominator?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)- Redirect, no evidence this census tract has received SIGCOV in IRS.
- JoelleJay (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Spot Blue International Property (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'd by David Gerard in 2020, but ineligible because of previous PROD. His rationale, which I agree with, follows: Promotional article, created by SPA. No evidence nor claim of notability - article claims are puffery. WP:BEFORE showed no evidence of meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG.
(Well, the article was puffery, before it was stripped to the bone, but regardless.)
It was PROD'd in 2013 as spam by Salimfadhley and endorsed by Bearian, but that PROD was removed by Rmbeanie who was an SPA and hasn't edited since. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Turkey, and England. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - I could not find much independent coverage when I searched.Chidgk1 (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Still Delete per all the above - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- So I made these edits. That was a baptism by fire.
- What counts as Puffery or Notability?
- The business should have enough media coverage to warrant a page?
- The co-director is cited quite frequently in the press. (I'm conscious the daily mail isn't a citable source).
- https://www.albawaba.com/business/real-estate-sector-thrives-turkey-due-lira-plummet-1177392
- https://www.arabnews.com/node/1361941/business-economy
- https://www.arabianbusiness.com/interviews/property/safe-as-houses-524350
- https://www.cnbc.com/2013/12/12/turkeys-property-market-is-hotting-up.html
- https://www.countrylife.co.uk/property/international-property-guides/turkey-the-new-property-hotspot-26688
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5877937/Invest-money-second-holiday-home-buy-let-student-digs-child.html
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1161568/Flocking-Turkey-The-Aegean-new-retirement-hot-spot.html
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1268238/Top-end-Turkish-treats-High-spec-contemporary-homes-gorgeous-Turquoise-coast.html
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1302815/Its-knockout-Ricky-Hatton-fighting-form-Turkish-coast.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1306659/Turkey-shore-bet-The-holiday-home-market-thriving-Turquoise-Coast.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1344945/Well-hello-sunshine-That-dream-home-reach-look-long-hard-plunge.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1293340/Talking-Turkey-From-Istanbul-golf-getaways-Antalya-prospects-sunny.html
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-2043781/All-abroad-Tempted-buy-dream-home-overseas-Smart--look-leap.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-2136188/Plunge-Aegean-Holiday-home-buyers-beginning-Turkish-coast-irresistible.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
- https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/property/349027/Bodrum-s-not-just-for-billionaires
- https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1522466/british-expats-portugal-exclusive-destination-comporta
- https://www.ft.com/content/fb64a564-29a3-11e0-bb9b-00144feab49a#axzz1CblKEdrc
- https://www.ft.com/content/8090f736-83d8-11e5-8e80-1574112844fd
- https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jul/13/buyingpropertyabroad.property?gusrc=rss&feed=money
- https://www.theguardian.com/money/gallery/2009/jan/17/property-house-prices-snooping-around?picture=341869000
- https://www.theguardian.com/money/gallery/2010/may/27/snooping-around-homes-market?picture=363100259
- https://www.theguardian.com/money/gallery/2010/sep/07/trading-up-trading-down-properties#/?picture=366493248&index=4
- https://gulfbusiness.com/deals-to-be-done-in-turkish-property/
- https://gulfnews.com/travel/destinations/look-before-you-leap-1.1247588
- https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/good-news-for-bodrum-real-estate-11061361
- https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/walker-avrupa-turkiye-den-cok-sey-ogrenebilir-19788982
- https://www.independent.co.uk/money/mortgages/turkey-and-beyond-rewards-of-buying-in-the-risks-and-distant-lands-790195.html
- https://www.invest.gov.tr/en/news/news-from-turkey/pages/tbcci-supports-turkey-government.aspx
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1268950/Why-Turkeys-Antalya-coastline-course-Algarve.html
- https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/turkish-property-sales-to-foreigners-rose-75-year-on-year-in-september-79453
- https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/new-york-miami-and-paris-may-benefit-from-a-stabilizing-u-k-210765
- https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/what-does-2-5m-buy-you-in-cheshire-warwickshire-cornwall-turkey-and-scotland-138581
- https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/lisbon-and-portuguese-resort-spots-on-the-rise-89130
- https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/this-niche-u-k-property-type-is-getting-its-place-in-the-sun-211033
- https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/7-places-you-can-live-10925373
- https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/greathomesanddestinations/house-hunting-on-the-turkish-aegean.html?_r=1
- https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/greathomesanddestinations/real-estate-in-turkey.html
- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/06/realestate/waterfront-homes-emerging-areas.html
- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/02/realestate/turkey-waterfront-homes.html
- https://www.propertyweek.com/residential-and-development/turkish-delight-but-for-how-long/5070602.article?/5070602.article
- https://www.rightmove.co.uk/overseas-magazine/turkeys-calming-effect/
- https://www.scmp.com/property/international/article/1337300/foreigners-flock-turkey
- https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/news-trends/article/3043645/how-brexit-and-staycations-have-fuelled-uks-holiday
- https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/where-to-buy-a-holiday-home-in-europe-for-less-than-pound50000-nhk0htrxtkv
- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/retirement/8841000/Top-20-cheapest-places-to-retire.html
- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/abroad/1m-homes-around-the-world-for-the-price-of-a-one-bed-flat-in-lon/
- https://www.theguardian.com/money/gallery/2009/apr/29/property-gallery-house-prices?picture=346628791
- https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/take-five-for-1-2-million-1.772525
- https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/take-five-for-595-000-1.726842
- https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/2.815/take-five-for-400-000-1.642766
- https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/what-does-2-5m-buy-you-in-cheshire-warwickshire-cornwall-turkey-and-scotland-xlp3n7pgr?--xx-meta=denied_for_visit%3D0%26visit_number%3D0%26visit_remaining%3D0%26visit_used%3D0&--xx-mvt-opted-out=false&--xx-uuid=85648138600ded5c1355ba0e01f57c9e&ni-statuscode=acsaz-307
- https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-1631059/Property-abroad-The-delights-of-Turkey.html
- https://www.milliyet.com.tr/ekonomi/spot-blueya-en-prestijli-odul-1610841
- https://www.milliyet.com.tr/ekonomi/korfeze-savunma-istanbul-a-luks-konut-cikarmasi-yapti-1493443
- https://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/turkey-2014-business-review/88116
- https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/ekonomi/taksim-olaylarina-ragmen-iyi-bir-hafta-iyi-bir-ay-gecirdik/240062
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303661904576455481426045582#%2F8
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203388804576612602261149530#house
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303734204577466103689995264
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303360504577409781854486066
- https://finance.yahoo.com/news/foreign-turkish-property-investments-reach-121500975.html Marksharron (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Notability isn't inherited; it doesn't matter where or how often the co-director is quoted (or indeed even if he himself is notable). What we are looking for is significant coverage of the actual company and its operations, not just trivial mentions of it in articles about other things (which is what you've got above). You may want to took a look at the notability criteria for companies, which also discusses in some greater depth what kind of sources are good for supporting a claim to notability with regards to a company. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The company and its directors were not notable in 2013, based on virtually no citations at all from before 10 years ago. That one of its directors might be notable now does not translate to notability of a company, unless we Pierce the veil. Bearian (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - I cannot find anything that meets WP:ORGCRIT unless @Marksharron: is able to point out some of the wall of references listed above.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2000 AD (comics). Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Judge (2000 AD) (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 fictional concept from Judge Dredd's universe, a lenghty plot summary with no reception/analysis, many footnotes here but they are all to the comic book, with one exception (Facebook post...). I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This looks like a rehash of the premise for the series. Lacking reliable sources as is, but WP:BEFORE doesn't really distinguish between this and the series itself. Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment.
It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale...
As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none. As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen. I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion. Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial. To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep BUT leave flags for improvement
The page itself seems notable for the comic, video game and cinema universe but it's not realistic in my opinion to only provide print sources for the comic book itself plus Facebook to cite an article of this length. Definitely needs improvement but I personally would keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingHistoryFan (talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2000 AD (comics) as WP:ATD-R —siroχo 04:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Judge Dredd. Richard75 (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different suggested target articles for Redirect/Merge. Please settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment to provide some context to my above suggestion. I think 2000 AD (comics) is more appropriate as the work originating the concept. Personally, I think redirecting from an idea to a fictional character is more WP:ASTONISHing than redirecting to the work originating the idea. I am of course willing to hear alternative points of view. —siroχo 04:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- !voting delete above, I could support a redirect to 2000 AD (comics), as suggested by Siroxo. Following on their comment, I could also be convinced for another idea. Further expansion and/or retargeting could happen through the editing process after the AFD is closed. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was draftify. ✗plicit 04:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wesley Grammar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't pass WP:NSCHOOL, and by extension WP:NCORP and/or WP:GNG - RichT|C|E-Mail 02:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ghana. - RichT|C|E-Mail 02:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG.
- FatCat96 (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above comment. Aydoh8 (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been signicantly expanded since the last "delete" !vote, which requires additional evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify - this was a good relist in my opinion. User:Samuel Ola appears to have some information on the subject, but supporting references are needed. - Indefensible (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify, there's enough content there that the school shows signs of notability, but needs more work to definitively prove it. Some more time in the drafting oven would help it enormously. GraziePrego (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- XMedia Recode (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)
Only references are primary sources. Doesn't pass WP:GNG - RichT|C|E-Mail 02:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - RichT|C|E-Mail 02:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep this subject meets WP:GNG
- Keep. Non primary sources obviously need to be added, though. MarkiPoli (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Siroxo. Aydoh8 (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - If single paragraphs and write-ups in software download sites like Softpedia are sufficient for an entire stand-alone article, our standards are way too low. Softpedia "reviews" basically everything that's sent to it. The book is a single paragraph in a how-to book. These are more like directory listings than reviews. Beyond that, our article is currently an advertisement for the software, standing in for the official site and citing absolutely no independent sources. Delete for both notability and WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of generating further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Other than the Softpedia product review, there are only mentions. The video is barely a minute long. I did find a "how to" and a software listing that may have been a source for some of the content of the article, or at least it contains much of the same information. Still, nothing that would raise this to notability, IMO, as these are just reiterations of the tech specs that come with the software. Lamona (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails to have WP:SIGCOV and so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Coleman Tech Charter High School (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 defunct charter high school, Fails WP:NORG. The only source in the article talks about the small school that replaced it, "SET". No article has been written for that school.
It is unclear that this SET school is notable either as that the source is a local news source which fails WP:CORPDEPTH, especially since that source only relies on school officials for information. Mottezen (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The article has a 9 year old tag and hasn't been improved much since this article's creation in 2014. Even searching the web, almost nothing is notable about the now defunct school. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう!) 08:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
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! 02:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- 2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania mayoral election (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 a G4, but no indication issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election have changed. Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pennsylvania. Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Courtesy pings to AfD participants, AfC accepter, refunder: @Scope creep, Im really bad at this, Number 57, Doctormatt, Explicit, Apocheir, GeorgeBailey, Qcne, and Graeme Bartlett: Star Mississippi 02:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- comment Notability plays no role when refunding a draft. So I am not opposing or supporting deletion, but I would be happy to make this a draft again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I approved this draft as it seemed to meet the criteria for WP:NEVENT, but happy to defer to more experienced editors. Qcne (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for that insight @Graeme Bartlett. I wrongly thought it was weighed when refunded following an AfD. (And of course no issue with the refund itself) Star Mississippi 13:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to List of mayors of Lancaster, Pennsylvania and/or Danene Sorace. Since the last commenter invoked WP:NEVENT, I would point to WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:ROUTINE and WP:DIVERSE from those guidelines. Also, all my points from the first go-around still stand. Apocheir (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the above comment. It should be deleted or possibly merged if there is consensus but I don't think it is notable. If its deleted, it should be salted. scope_creepTalk 09:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet NEVENT per policies linked in Apocheir's !vote. Like horrific crimes, not every important local election is an
event... of lasting, historical significance
. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- S.G. Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously declined speedy otherwise I would have prodded this. Only a primary source provided. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - lacks references to support. - Indefensible (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not meet NSCHOOL — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
User talk:2A01:B747:65:344:1135:3847:BE7C:94C8/AfD
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Suburban Hostage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC let alone WP:GNG - RichT|C|E-Mail 01:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. - RichT|C|E-Mail 01:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete Vanity page created and maintained by multiple SPA editors and IP addresses. A small time group, self-record and release own work. Gained no significant third party coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 William Henderson (architect). Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Henderson family (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)
Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, although there are a few related Hendersons here, there are no sources establishing notability of the family as a whole; fails WP:NLIST/GNG. Reywas92Talk 01:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 01:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge just a bit to William Henderson (architect) and perhaps Gordon F. Henderson. I think the latter makes sense as the redirect target. —siroχo 05:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Scotland and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. especially given expansion of article since nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Paw Paw High School (Illinois) (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 small high school (95 students in grades 7-12) fails WP:ORG notability criteria. The school is no longer operating. Current article sourcing consists of government sources. Searching finds fairly routine sports coverage such as: 1956 article, and 1957 article. No significant coverage found although there are about 60 years of coverage and I did not read every article available.
A redirect to Paw Paw, Illinois#Education is an alternative to deletion. Gab4gab (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Illinois. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Some sources I found: [44] [45] [46]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. High schools in the United States or Canada are usually notable, whether or not they are still open. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Each high school should be evaluated based on the coverage it receives. It is likely that high schools that have less than 100 students tend to generate less coverage than the average high school. Gab4gab (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Reply. No, high schools used to be automatically considered notable. That concensus changed a while back, and they're now required to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. I'm not seeing any significant coverage or achievement that raises them to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)*
Comment. Calling this school a small school with "less 100 students" seems disingenous. The school was in operation from at least 19561841-2018 (175+ years). Some sources I saw mentioned much larger enrollments. As an encyclopedia, should we consider the current status of a subject or should we consider its entire history? I've noticed significant improvements to the article already by BeanieFan11. Let's see if we can't find some offline sources, as the vast majority of this school's existence predates the internet.Jacona (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith is one of our guidelines. Less than 100 students is what is sourced in the article. Editors are free to add details they find in other sources. Gab4gab (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Gab4gab, The school was in existence for over 175 years. The number of students one particular year seems totally irrelevant to whether or not it would be considered WP:N. While AGF is a guideline, it is not a reason to delete. — Jacona (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a secondary school in the United States that existed for over 175 years. There are plenty of sources available at Newspapers.com and elsewhere, including this one, available at newspapers.com.[2] Passes WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. I would venture that in 175 years, almost all of the available references would be offline, so this is the tip of the iceberg. Jacona (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "13th Women In Business And Leadership Conference". Pakistan Society for Training and Development.
- ^ Bretag, Jerry (October 16, 1956). "Football back at Paw Paw". Dekalb, Illinois: Daily Chronicle. p. 14.
- Keep per Jacona and WP:NTEMP. The fact that something does not exist now does not make in unencyclopaedic. Even without that, existing cites would pass WP:GNG. There is no valid policy reason to delete this article, and deletion would not improve Wikipedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- The existing cites do not provide significant coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Clarityfiend, have you ever read the instructions linked above for participation at AfD? I'm asking because if you had, you would know that the state of the article currently is not what we are discussing here. Your comment is completely irrelevant. That being said, I think the best thing to do here would be to move this article to Paw Paw Community Unit School District 271 (leaving this title as a redirect) and expand to include other details about the district. The primary notability of the school is historic, and that history can be covered in an article on the district which can also include other details about the district and falls under a different much less restrictive SNG, WP:GEOFEAT. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Are you so clueless that you think I'm a noob. Just on AfCs (the reverse of an AfD: deciding which drafts are worthy to become articles) alone, I've handled just under 900 (since I started counting). The number of AfDs I've lvoted on is probably comparable.
- What does GEOFEAT have to do with proving this article deserves to survive? Nothing. Just because something is old, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is notable. You have to show this is so with better sources than are currently here, so my statement is perfectly valid and appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Clarityfiend, Wow, your experience is very impressive! Please do not make personal attacks. — Jacona (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- The existing cites do not provide significant coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific discussion and analysis of available source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. With the references that have been added, notability is adequately shown. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, sources exist and the article has been improved to reflect that, with possibilities for further improvement based on the long history of sources. I think WP:HEY applies here, too. —siroχo 05:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Muhammed Majeed (scientist) (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 [47]. Page was deleted, draftified, and deleted (once again, 4 months ago). It was created under a different name by the same editor ([48]). But still, per WP:PROF, doesn't appear to have had significant impact. All (except one) of the sources are his own work. I couldn't find any secondary sources that indicated his work was so significant to merit his own article. And according to the specific criteria notes: Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.
Also, citation metrics, such as having 8,600 citations is not a good indicator per WP:PROF#Citation metrics: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied.
A non-governmental organization, ASSOCHAM, through a virtual conference gave him a grandiose honorary title, which doesn't equate to a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level
. As a further note, a search of the name returns possibly several people of the same name, and an assistant professor from the US comes up first. Aintabli (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aintabli (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. All but one book is self-published. (The publisher is registered to the subject). —siroχo 05:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Siroxo Whether the books self published or not would not matter when they have been used over 8000 times as citation by other academics. He is a scientists releasing scientific material and books. He is not a fiction writer. This is how most scientists release publications. Hkkingg (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I do not see 8000 citations for the self-published books. —siroχo 19:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Siroxo Whether the books self published or not would not matter when they have been used over 8000 times as citation by other academics. He is a scientists releasing scientific material and books. He is not a fiction writer. This is how most scientists release publications. Hkkingg (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and salt Obvious attempt to bypass the community's decision in the May 2023 AfD is obvious. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the page name, I did that because there are several people with similar names (some different spellings), so I didn't want there to be any confusion, Check Mohamed Mjid, Mohammad Majid Hussain, Mohammad Majid Ali and Majed Mohammed. There are also many others with the name that will come up in Google. Hkkingg (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't change the fact that you have overruled a decision by the community, which the name difference appears to camouflage. Even with WP:GF, if you cannot keep track of recent deletions of articles you've created despite all that still being visible on your talk page, I'm afraid that enters the realm of WP:CIR. Aintabli (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- During the last AFD discussion, I perceived a negative bias against him, as the voters seemed to doubt the scientific validity of his advocacy. For example one DELETE voter stated "Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for fringe-medicine purveyors." Consequently, I made modifications to the page content in my new submission, resulting in a significant transformation. While I acknowledge the experience of editors like @David Eppstein, I believe it's important to maintain impartiality and objectivity. I recognize Wikipedia's policies concerning unverified science, but in this particular case, they don't apply. Therefore, I urge individuals to set aside any preconceived biases and base their votes on the fact that he possesses over 8000 academic citations and has received multiple awards, thereby meeting the criteria outlined in both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. Hkkingg (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't change the fact that you have overruled a decision by the community, which the name difference appears to camouflage. Even with WP:GF, if you cannot keep track of recent deletions of articles you've created despite all that still being visible on your talk page, I'm afraid that enters the realm of WP:CIR. Aintabli (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the page name, I did that because there are several people with similar names (some different spellings), so I didn't want there to be any confusion, Check Mohamed Mjid, Mohammad Majid Hussain, Mohammad Majid Ali and Majed Mohammed. There are also many others with the name that will come up in Google. Hkkingg (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. Different enough from the deleted version for G4 not to apply, but with no new evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Disclosure: I am the page creator. Firstly the last AFD was borderline with 3 keeps and 3 deletes and at minimum should have been extended for 1-2 weeks or should have been kept as "No Consensus."
Second we had some non-policy based Delete votes like this one " Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for fringe-medicine purveyors." I also felt that most of the problem was with the way the page was written, which made people think that way. So I have completely revised the copy. In addition, it really doesn't matter if he has enough citations, because as an Academic he meets WP:ACADEMIC and has over 8000 citations. It just speaks for itself. He is well known as one of the experts in his field and has also won awards as follows:
- -Government of India - Presidential Award
- -National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations - Ellis Island Medal of Honor
- -Long Island University - Daniel B. Statesman Award for Distinguished Alumni
- -Indian-American Kerala Cultural and Civic Center - 25th Jubilee Year Lifetime Achievement Award
- -Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India - Shield of Honor Award
- -Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India - Indian Nutraceuticals Trailblazer Award
- -Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India - Father of Indian Nutraceutical Industry Award
- Hence he also meets WP:ANYBIO. Ellis Island Medal of Honor is a well known award and has a wiki page. Also He got an award from Government of India.Hkkingg (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- If one discounts single-purpose accounts and blocked sockpuppets, the last AfD was much more convincing: 3 policy-based deletes and 3 discounted comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, AfD discussions aren't concluded by pure headcounts but by arguments made anyway. Cortador (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- The prior AFD also had an IP voter with no history voting to Delete and in my opinion was closed prematurely. Please have a look at all these citations as well and tell me why you think they are not acceptable:
- Innovate Bengaluru
- Sami-Sabinsa Wins Multiple Awards | HAPPI
- Sabinsa Crosses 400-Patent Milestone | Nutraceuticals World
- Sabinsa Founder Dr. Muhammed Majeed Named Father of Indian Nutraceuticals Industry.
- Dr. Majeed Foundation supports COVID-19 efforts in India, donating over $1.32M.
- "Sabinsa founder Dr Muhammed Majeed publishes book highlighting selenium research".
- Dr. Muhammed Majeed, Sabinsa". WholeFoods Magazine
- The subject has also registered over 400 patents which are being used in actual products by his company Sabina. Hkkingg (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- If one discounts single-purpose accounts and blocked sockpuppets, the last AfD was much more convincing: 3 policy-based deletes and 3 discounted comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per the closure in the May 2023 AfD. --Mvqr (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please post a better argument per policy. This argument is not valid, The prior AFD also had an IP voter with no history voting to Delete and in my opinion was closed prematurely. Please have a look at all these citations as well and tell me why you think they are not acceptable:
- Innovate Bengaluru
- Sami-Sabinsa Wins Multiple Awards | HAPPI
- Sabinsa Crosses 400-Patent Milestone | Nutraceuticals World
- Sabinsa Founder Dr. Muhammed Majeed Named Father of Indian Nutraceuticals Industry.
- Dr. Majeed Foundation supports COVID-19 efforts in India, donating over $1.32M.
- "Sabinsa founder Dr Muhammed Majeed publishes book highlighting selenium research".
- Dr. Muhammed Majeed, Sabinsa". WholeFoods Magazine
- The subject has also registered over 400 patents which are being used in actual products by his company Sabina. Hkkingg (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and salt as per arguments above.Cortador (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Cortador Do not just go with the flow and post your own reasons. Please see my arguments as well and state your reasons why my arguments are not valid in your opinion. He meets WP:ANYBIO for his awards and he meets WP:ACADEMIC for having over 8000 citations. he also has several good articles that as I have listed. Hkkingg (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hkkingg, sometimes responding to every editor can backfire. I think you've put together your best argument and don't need to counter every other editor who has a different opinion than yours. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete (not sure on Salt) -- self-published books without independent reviews/assertions of importance count for very little for notability. The one McGraw Hill book seems to be not one of their main labels. Not enough articles, citations, awards to approach the WP:PROF guideline (and I'm pretty inclusionist). Articles pointed out by the main editor, such as Whole Foods Magazine show again more self-promotion and not independent coverage. Not sure on salting, because there is a decent possibility that the company may someday be significant and this article be a redirect, but if it's this disruptive to the editing community, salting may be in order. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. This is a pretty clear case of WP:FRINGE, so WP:PROF does not apply and the subject has to be evaluated under WP:BIO for the purposes of notability. There is simply too little here in that regard apart from self-published sources and promotional fluff. Nsk92 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of United States political families (N). Feel free to Merge content to other relevant articles. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nelson family (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)
Prodded by IceBergYYC with "See WP:NOTGENEALOGY, only significant source discussing the family as a whole is arguably primary." and removed by author. I would agree that the main source, [49], a family member's own work building a family tree, is not independent or adequately reliable. The other sources are about individuals, not the family as a whole. The notable members are several generations apart and likely did not know each other, so this is really just a non-notable genealogy page rather than a cohesively notable family discussed together. Reywas92Talk 01:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm allowed to nominate a template here, but also nominating Template:Nelson family. The people listed here are merely distant cousins of each other so a navbox is not warranted. Reywas92Talk 01:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 01:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Failure of GNG and NOTGENEALOGY. Depending on your definition of a list, failure of WP:NLIST as well. IceBergYYC (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge with List of United States political families (N) I'm not seeing any sources that establish the notability of the family to warrant a separate article. Since many of the members were politicians, I think that merging to this list of other political families is a valid ATD. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The notable ones were second cousins of each other, not sure that belongs as a "political family" where most listed are more closely related. Reywas92Talk 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at the proposed merge target and other letters, there are several people listed whose relationship is given only as "cousin" (no indication of to what degree of kinship). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- The notable ones were second cousins of each other, not sure that belongs as a "political family" where most listed are more closely related. Reywas92Talk 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete not really evident that the Nelson family has formed a cohesive unit (passing down resources, influence etc.) except in the strictly genealogical sense. Choess (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether to Delete or selectively Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merge selectively to either Polycarpus Nelson or perhaps List of United States political families (N). Best to use an ATD here to save history because many of the minor (verifiable) details could be useful an across a variety of biographies. —siroχo 03:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- 2021 Muskogee shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable shooting; got a burst of coverage at the time but the only sources since are routine coverage of the court proceedings that do not meet WP:SUSTAINED. No lasting WP:EFFECTs. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Oklahoma. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Second deadliest shooting in the state, seems notable. Sourcing is solid... What do others think? Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see what makes the second-deadliest shooting in a state inherently notable? Six deaths unfortunately isn't particularly unusual in the American context (there were 11 such shootings with at least 6 victims in 2021, and of the four other shootings with exactly six victims, two don't have articles). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment:I think if you check state newspapers you'll find things like anniversary coverage and more follow up coverage. I don't have the articles in front of me, but as a regular reader of the state's media coverage I've seen it pop up a few times. I'd have to do a WP:before of the Tulsa World and The Oklahoman's archives before I'd feel comfortable voting. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I added some Trial coverage, but was honestly surprised I didn't find much more. I tried to find a state representative statement or response, but couldn't find any comments from public figures other than mayor Marlon Coleman.
- Also, I didn't find much anniversary coverage either. But there is probably a little more trial coverage than what I added. While technically deadlier than the 2022 Tulsa hospital shooting, the response and sustained coverage appear to be a bit less, at least looking at state sources. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment:I think if you check state newspapers you'll find things like anniversary coverage and more follow up coverage. I don't have the articles in front of me, but as a regular reader of the state's media coverage I've seen it pop up a few times. I'd have to do a WP:before of the Tulsa World and The Oklahoman's archives before I'd feel comfortable voting. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see what makes the second-deadliest shooting in a state inherently notable? Six deaths unfortunately isn't particularly unusual in the American context (there were 11 such shootings with at least 6 victims in 2021, and of the four other shootings with exactly six victims, two don't have articles). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Second deadliest shooting in the state, seems notable. Sourcing is solid... What do others think? Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Weak Keep - This is the very edge of WP:NTEMP. Notability is pretty well established at the time of the incident (NYT, AP, USAT), and regional coverage continues (Fox in 22 and the Phoenix in 23). Unlike other mass shooting events, this seems to have regional repercussions which just barely satisfies WP:NEVENT in my view. If TulsaPoliticsFan can find more regional sources, then I would move to a much stronger Keep !vote, but I think it squeaks by with cited WP:RSs. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)•Weak Delete - TulsaPoliticsFan's research didn't turn out and WP:SIGCOV or WP:SUSTAINED outside already cited, and my own research simply didn't turn out anything for notable WP:EFFECTs of this event. Without that, we're left with WP:RSBREAKING as pointed out by other editors. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- Weak keep as discussed, there are some lingering coverage/articles about the event. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete unless any retrospective sources are found. Sources about this topic are all WP:RSBREAKING sources, either for the initial event or for the subsequent trial, and do not count toward GNG. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- Keep. Notability doesn't expire. Cortador (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The deletion argument centre on the fact that notability (from an |NEVENT viewpoint) never existed, not that it lost notability over time. Based on TulsaPoliticsFan's dive into regional sources, I am scratching my !vote to keep (see edit above). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: My concern is the lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage and discussion of the event. Unlike the 2022 Tulsa hospital shooting, this shooting did not generate push for reforms or long term coverage. The death count is high, but it is just a shooting at a home that the reporting indicates happened because the perp is mentally unwell. It generated substantial local coverage (expected from a smaller town), some state-wide coverage (but much less than other shootings I'd call notable), and national headlines immediately after (the strongest case for notability). If there was more state-wide coverage from Oklahoma papers, I'd vote keep, but from my research this doesn't appear that notable outside of Muskogee. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete: NOTNEWS. Six people getting shot is routine these days in the USA. Zero coverage found, 2 yrs later. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies for perhaps not replying in the intended format but I wanted to share my 2 cents on this anyhow. I'm in favor of keeping it. The gravity of this topic may not be meet notability standards relative to American news context, as was pointed out elsewhere here, but from a non-American standpoint (such as mine) it still seems notable enough considering OK is a relatively quiet state and I think (not sure) this is the most severe assault since the 1995 OKC bombing. Kindly reconsider deletion, thank you. Alfredvanderzwam (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- This comment on it being the deadliest violent event since the Oklahoma City Bombing appears to be mostly true. The only deadlier event (than the Muscogee shooting, not the bombing) we have an article for since is the 2023 Henryetta killings. On the other hand, I wouldn't call us a quiet state; I mean it is an open carry, or constitutional carry if you wanna be technical, state. Shootings aren't uncommon here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. User:Oaktree b can you cancel out your duplicate vote so it's easier to see where things stand?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED. Sadly, not an uncommon occurrence these days in the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Duplicate !votes corrected, sorry. Wiki formatting still buggers me up sometimes. Oaktree b (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep — A rampage murder of this scale isn't unique, but remains uncommon. The event currently stands at #64 in List of rampage killers (familicides in the United States). On that list there has been ONE such mass murder since this one happened in February 2021, and just eleven since 2010. (Yes there are other kinds of mass killings in the USA as well, but again we're speaking of under ten a year at this scale.) Separately, there has been at least some follow-up coverage marking the anniversary of the killing[50],[51].--Carwil (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ali Kahramanlı (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)
As noted by the maintenance template (dating back to February 2015), the article topic doesn't appear to be notable. I am having a difficult time finding reliable secondary sources for his notability. Current references are either from the website of the sports club he once led or his family website, let alone none of the links are functioning. The article was basically forgotten after 2015. According to Turkish Wikipedia, he appears to have resigned from Mersin İdmanyurdu SK 8 years ago. Aintabli (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Aintabli (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and no significant coverage. ContributorMix (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Santa Das Kathiababa (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)
- Santadasji Kathia Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a person who has no coverage in reliable sources in English. A Google search for Santa Das Kathiababa produced six results, including three Youtube videos, and two Facebook pages. The article has ten "citations": three of these are to Wikipedia pages, and three to www.exoticindiaart.com. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
It is also a recreation of an article that was previously deleted, both as a result of deletion discussions, and as a result of speedy deletions (see User talk:Srabanta Deb). (Sorry I did not spot this earlier.) -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Srabanta Deb has added more citations since the above was written. I read at the first four using Google translate: 1, 3, and 4 were just padding, and do not seem to support anything; 2 does support content - some of the sentences in the article were copied and pasted from the Google translation without attribution. Source 2 is sanatantv-live; this is not an independent source; whether the information in sanatantv-live about his legal career is true or not would need to be confirmed by secular sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Srabanta Deb made a new version of the article on this person at Santadasji Kathia Baba at 10:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC), so I have added that to this AFD discussion. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Srabanta Deb has added more citations since the above was written. I read at the first four using Google translate: 1, 3, and 4 were just padding, and do not seem to support anything; 2 does support content - some of the sentences in the article were copied and pasted from the Google translation without attribution. Source 2 is sanatantv-live; this is not an independent source; whether the information in sanatantv-live about his legal career is true or not would need to be confirmed by secular sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- A person is famous only if his name or work is on Google. was a chief religious guru of the Nimbarka Sampradaya of Hinduism. He has millions of fans and followers. His devotees and followers request that Wikipedia should have this Santa Das Kathiababa edit on a trusted server so that his followers and new generation people can know about the life of Santa Das Kathiababa. So please do not delete this article. Srabanta Deb (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability says:
Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.
I searched on Google to try to find reliable sources on the topic, but I could not find any. The Wikipedia article you have created for the nth time only has one source that I consider plausible, an article in The Telegraph (India), Janmashtami at ashram, by Dalia Mukherjee, 22 August 2014, but all the information about Santa Das Kathiababa in the article was provided by Joydeb Kumar Sarkar, the secretary of the ashram. If he really does have "millions of fans and followers", there ought to be coverage of this in reliable sources - so where is it?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability says:
- My request is not to delete this edit from English Wikipedia
- Santa Das Kathiababa is a famous 18th century Indian Hindu spiritual leader, social worker and religious guru.My request is not to delete this edit from English Wikipedia. Thank you Srabanta Deb (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[52]
- Santa Sas Kathiababa was a Hindu spiritual leader, social worker, and Hindu religious guru. Why is this edit repeatedly deleted from Wikipedia? A famous person is being disrespected by repeatedly deleting their edits. His followers are expressing a lot of grief. So his followers demand that this edit not be deleted from Wikipedia. Srabanta Deb (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[53]
- I would counter that you're disrespecting them by constantly reminding them of this issue. Constantly creating an article and having it deleted, only to be created again, and to be deleted again, is not helping their memory. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Santa Sas Kathiababa was a Hindu spiritual leader, social worker, and Hindu religious guru. Why is this edit repeatedly deleted from Wikipedia? A famous person is being disrespected by repeatedly deleting their edits. His followers are expressing a lot of grief. So his followers demand that this edit not be deleted from Wikipedia. Srabanta Deb (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[53]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Philosophy, Hinduism, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Google famous is not what we're looking for. I'm not seeing notability due to a lack of substantial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please provide poilcy-based arguments for Keeping or Deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- Delete nothing on books, nothing on google, can't even find a source to confirm this person existed at all. BrigadierG (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Carter BloodCare (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:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, United States of America, and Texas. UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- This should probably be kept in my opinion, the referencing is not great but does have quite a number of mentions from publishers considered to be reliable sources, as well as local sources which is to be expected. Subject is a nonprofit fulfilling a critical function, so "promotion" in this sense is not for profit but rather for obvious philanthropic need. - Indefensible (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this one more week in the hope that we can get some analysis of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- Keep - Borderline on whether the coverage is significant enough, but there's plenty of it and it's definitely independent, reliable local news.
- https://www.kwtx.com/2023/08/30/waco-fire-begins-collecting-donations-battle-badges-blood-drive/ - Independent, reliable, significant coverage.
- https://www.fox44news.com/news/local-news/bell-county/killeen-battle-of-the-badges-sees-record-number-of-donors/ - Independent, reliable, significant coverage.
- https://www.crosstimbersgazette.com/2023/09/04/licardos-life-saving-mission-former-navy-seal-leads-sixth-annual-blood-drive/ - Independent, reliable, borderline significance
- Their website lists off every time they've been mentioned in the local news. Many instances aren't significant, but it's pretty clear they're a community staple in Texas and get lots of coverage of their annual blood drives.
- https://www.carterbloodcare.org/who-we-are/newsroom/in-the-news/ BrigadierG (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete
- https://www.kwtx.com/2023/08/30/waco-fire-begins-collecting-donations-battle-badges-blood-drive - not significant coverage, just a passing mention/press release
- https://www.fox44news.com/news/local-news/bell-county/killeen-battle-of-the-badges-sees-record-number-of-donors - not significant coverage or independent content, just a press release
- https://www.crosstimbersgazette.com/2023/09/04/licardos-life-saving-mission-former-navy-seal-leads-sixth-annual-blood-drive/ - mentioned twice in passing
- I'm really not seeing any in-depth, independent coverage here, just a bunch of scraping of the bottom of the barrel that isn't sufficient. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery: What do you think of this article? I grant that it's really primarily about the behavior of the Red Cross in this period, but it does underscore the significance of the article subject as a competitor in the field (and was published in a different state). BD2412 T 18:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- I see your point, but I really don't think that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery: What do you think of this article? I grant that it's really primarily about the behavior of the Red Cross in this period, but it does underscore the significance of the article subject as a competitor in the field (and was published in a different state). BD2412 T 18:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Leaning keep or draftify. A newspapers.com search yields over 5,000 hits, some of which seem more substantial in coverage than the sources put forth so far. BD2412 T 01:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Rhys Dacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. I could not find any significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep
another Lugnuts substub he was sanctioned multiple times for making thousands of. No medal, no GNG --> deletionChanging my vote to keep thanks to source discovery.BrigadierG (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep
- Keep. There appears to be only one available New Zealand newspaper from his time period, and that one newspaper has extensive coverage of him, see for example numerous pieces of in-depth coverage for his Olympic appearance and national sprinting records: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] and [59], among many others. This is enough to satisfy WP:SPORTCRIT and be able to presume additional GNG-satisfying coverage exists, per SPORTCRIT. Pinging @Paora: to see if they can find any more coverage, as well as @BrigadierG:, who hasn't yet seen the coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging others who are known to vote keep can be seen as WP:CANVASSing. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- According to WP:CANVASS, an example of an appropriate notification would be for a user
known for expertise in the field
– Paora is known for expertise in the New Zealand athletics area, having found coverage for notability in many cases where others were unable to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- I'm pretty sure Paora follows NZ sorted articles, there is no need to notify known keep voters. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- As per WP:INAPPNOTE "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" LibStar (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not notifying Paora "based on their known opinions," but because Paora is
known for expertise in the field
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- Why the need to notify? Paora follows NZ sorted articles? LibStar (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Because I haven't followed Paora around to learn that they follow NZ sorted articles (not suggesting you do, but how do you know that?) – I just know that that user is good at locating sources; CANVASS states that it is appropriate to notify editors
known for expertise in the field
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Because I haven't followed Paora around to learn that they follow NZ sorted articles (not suggesting you do, but how do you know that?) – I just know that that user is good at locating sources; CANVASS states that it is appropriate to notify editors
- Canvassing includes notifications that are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm really serious in that I only sent the notification because Paora is
known for expertise in the field
– wasn't there some policy called WP:AGF? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- there's also a policy of WP:CANVASS. Paora is not necessarily an expert in athletics? You interacted with them here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Telford where he clearly displays a keep tendency. I suggest you refrain from making similar notifications in future AfDs. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW CANVASS is not a policy... but Paora seemed like a user who has "expertise in their field," (called out as an appropriate notification by CANVASS) as I've seen them find decent coverage for New Zealand athletes several times in the past - that's the only reason I notified them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- And in those several times, has Paora tended to vote keep on every occasion (regardless of their supposed expertise)? LibStar (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know – prior to the Telford nomination it had been awhile since I had came across Paora, but I remember coming across other deletion discussions in the past where other users said things like "pinging Paora who's known for being really good at finding sources for New Zealand topics" – that's really the only reason I notified them. I'm tired of repeating this point – I'm done discussing over this notification. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
where other users said things like "pinging Paora who's known for being really good at finding sources for New Zealand topics
is not an excuse to do the same because "I saw others do it." LibStar (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- WP:DROPTHESTICK my friend, this isn't the fight to fight. BrigadierG (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know – prior to the Telford nomination it had been awhile since I had came across Paora, but I remember coming across other deletion discussions in the past where other users said things like "pinging Paora who's known for being really good at finding sources for New Zealand topics" – that's really the only reason I notified them. I'm tired of repeating this point – I'm done discussing over this notification. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- And in those several times, has Paora tended to vote keep on every occasion (regardless of their supposed expertise)? LibStar (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW CANVASS is not a policy... but Paora seemed like a user who has "expertise in their field," (called out as an appropriate notification by CANVASS) as I've seen them find decent coverage for New Zealand athletes several times in the past - that's the only reason I notified them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- there's also a policy of WP:CANVASS. Paora is not necessarily an expert in athletics? You interacted with them here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Telford where he clearly displays a keep tendency. I suggest you refrain from making similar notifications in future AfDs. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm really serious in that I only sent the notification because Paora is
- Why the need to notify? Paora follows NZ sorted articles? LibStar (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not notifying Paora "based on their known opinions," but because Paora is
- As per WP:INAPPNOTE "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" LibStar (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure Paora follows NZ sorted articles, there is no need to notify known keep voters. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- According to WP:CANVASS, an example of an appropriate notification would be for a user
- Pinging others who are known to vote keep can be seen as WP:CANVASSing. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as BeanieFan has found, multiple authors over multiple years which includes significant secondary coverage, as athlete coverage needs to. Meets WP:SPORTSBASIC, WP:BASIC. —siroχo 06:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Those Canterbury local press stories, though. Have you read them? All I can say is, they must have had a lot of slow news days back then. I see nothing but WP:MILL coverage in the local paper of an athlete who didn't earn a medal. Delete.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't think the coverage provided above is run-of-the-mill. It gives plenty of detail on Dacre's life and sporting career. True, it's from a single publication, but it does cover a period of years and originates from different authors. Dacre also received small amounts of coverage in the Calgary Herald[1] and Ottawa Citizen[2]. All in all, it's enough for me.MarchOfTheGreyhounds 09:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I, personally, have had more coverage in my local paper than Dacre got in Canada, and I'm not notable at all.—S Marshall T/C 14:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The Press is the second-largest newspaper in the country, not this "small-town local paper" you seem to be making it into. Also, "MILL" is an essay and has no impact on notability (and even if it was a policy, how the heck is being an Olympian an "common, everyday, ordinary" accomplishment?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I, personally, have had more coverage in my local paper than Dacre got in Canada, and I'm not notable at all.—S Marshall T/C 14:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
References
- Keep. Coverage is enough. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC with the additional sourcing. As others have noted, The Press is one of the major New Zealand newspapers and is far from a "local" or "small-town" paper. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep following expansion. Paora (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.