Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a01:b747:65:344:1135:3847:be7c:94c8 (talk) at 19:14, 13 September 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Changed redirect target per Mushy Yank's suggestion. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  1. Museum of Motherhood article [3]
  2. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

*Merge List of Cohen crime family members into this one. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Comment re Liz's comment in relisting, note that I have changed my !vote to delete as 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)[reply]
It looks like this is a duplicate vote. Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]

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 assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Peter W. Hammond (1998), The Complete Peerage. No No SIGCOV: only genealogical information provided (DOB, married to, children). Also not a WP:SECONDARY source, which WP:GNG explicitly requests. 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 Obituary of the 9th Earl, no mention of the son. Fails SIGCOV. No
Burke's Peerage, vol. 1 (1999), p. 90 No No SIGCOV: only genealogical information provided (DOB, married to, children). Also not a WP:SECONDARY source, which WP:GNG explicitly requests. No
"DUNLUCE, Viscount" in Lucy Hume, ed., Debrett's People of Today (London: Debrett's, 2017), p. 1882 No No SIGCOV: only genealogical information provided (DOB, married to, children). Also not a WP:SECONDARY source requested by WP:GNG. No
" The Earl of Antrim, highcouncilofclandonald.com, accessed 3 July 2022 No The Earl is one of the chiefs of the clan, which owns this website. No WP:SPS No
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/pams-people-artist-hector-mcdonnell-sees-big-picture/31133678.html No No mention of the Earl. No
Richard Pococke, John McVeagh, Richard Pococke's Irish Tours (Irish Academic Press, 1995), p. 212 No This source covers the castle, not the Earl. No
Mark Bence-Jones, Burke's Guide to Country Houses: Volume I, Ireland (1978), p. 135 No This source covers the castle, not the Earl. 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 No SIGCOV: only genealogical information provided (DOB, married to, children). Also not a WP:SECONDARY source, which WP:GNG explicitly requests. No
"New Members appointed to the board of The Royal Parks", Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, accessed 28 July 2022 No No mention of the Earl. No
Deputy Lieutenant Commissions, The Belfast Gazette, 31 January 2014, Notice ID: B-7586-1 No WP:PRIMARY official gazette, not SIGCOV. 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 Passing mention. No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Pilaz (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. JoeNMLC (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I disagree firmly with those deletions and anticipate their reversals. Volvlogia (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per Actualcpscm. Dfertileplain (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Meh. The essay is fine. We need WP:SIGCOV from sources that are WP:IS and WP:RS. This article's subject fails to have that. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. plicit 14:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I've corrected the informations as you have mentioned. Please go and check them. George Simon Ohm (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) iMahesh (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

FatCat96 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 12:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Merge into Blob Tree seems a good outcome. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having taken a look, I'd worry about whether Blob Tree passes WP:GNG... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 20:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I do not find the sources provided thus far to be enough to establish notability.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Port Charlotte Sun Yes Yes No The source primarily discusses the Florida Veterans, only passing mentions of the Phantoms. No
Orlando Sentinel part 1, part 2 No As an interview it is a primary source and does not count towards notability. Reads like a regurgitation of the Phantom's self-description. No original independent opinion, analysis, or investigation is offered by the source. Yes Yes No
Sporting News No The limited info about the team is all provided directly by the Phantom's owner. Yes ? 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@FormalDude: That type of targeted notification seems like blatant canvasing to me. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to meet all the criteria of WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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; and Editors 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 05:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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 • tc) 18:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Redirect, no evidence this census tract has received SIGCOV in IRS.
JoelleJay (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. plicit 01:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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 (talkcontribs) 22:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

FatCat96 (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comment. Aydoh8 (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

siroχo 05:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "13th Women In Business And Leadership Conference". Pakistan Society for Training and Development.
  2. ^ Bretag, Jerry (October 16, 1956). "Football back at Paw Paw". Dekalb, Illinois: Daily Chronicle. p. 14.
  • The existing cites do not provide significant coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Also, AfD discussions aren't concluded by pure headcounts but by arguments made anyway. Cortador (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep. Notability doesn't expire. Cortador (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Duplicate !votes corrected, sorry. Wiki formatting still buggers me up sometimes. Oaktree b (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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][reply]
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][reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I see your point, but I really don't think that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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