Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 21	January 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azadi Cinema Complex

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

Non-notable movie theater. This article has existed since 2011, and nobody appears to have found sources showing its notability. My city has movie theaters too, but they are not notable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable film theater, from a historical and architectural point a view (and in the history of both Iranian film and Tehran society). Someone appears to have found sources showing it is notable and added them to the page today. See for yourself. Film theaters in the city where the nominator lives may not be notable but this one is. :D. So, Keep!-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The quote from The Politics of Iranian Cinema is evidence of notability. I also found a mention in a Boston Globe article about a politician: "He reopened Azadi cinema, a famous theater which had been burned down by hard-liners and closed for over a decade." That quote backs up the claim that the theater is "famous", and that there's a political story that may be documented in other sources we haven't found yet. Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toughpigs above. Llajwa (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayer Ji

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

I'm not seeing it. This is a WP:COATRACK -- we've got the cost of a subscription to his website in the article? We've got details on his use of affiliate links?

None of the sources are about him in a significant way. We've got a lot of information coming from unreliable sources: a bio of the guy on a talent booking website, not one but two PDFs hosted on "filesusr.com" written by a political advocacy group... note that I literally can't even link these URLs in the AfD despite being an admin because they are on the global spam blacklist...

his own websites, etc. The closest thing we get to sigificant, neutral third-party coverage is this blog post (which is for some reason in the ref list twice, as #4 and also #13). This Wired article mentions him once, in a single paragraph, in the sentence: Prominent pandemic deniers include a number of keen yoga practitioners, such as alternative health proponent Sayer Ji, who runs the website greenmedinfo.com, and his wife Kelly Brogan, who describes herself as a ‘holistic psychiatrist.’ This The Hill article also mentions him once, in a list with twelve other people. That's it. Here is a single fact check page about something that was on his website. This isn't significant coverage and the guy is not notable. jp×g 🗯️ 22:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Conspiracy theories, COVID-19, Medicine, Internet, Florida, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He has been extensively commented on by skeptic blogger David Gorski: [1] and [2], to give two examples. Those are blog entries and therefore don't count for notability (although Gorski is a subject-matter expert; he is a surgeon and frequent contributor to sciencebasedmedicine.org.) Ji was also named as one of the "disinformation dozen" responsible for most of social media's antivaccine misinformation by the Center for Countering Digital Hate: [3]. I'm reluctant to vote keep because I am unsure whether those together would count for notability. But Ji is a major player in the antivax disinformation world, and having an article (properly-sourced and in line with WP:FRINGE) on him would help fill the vacuum where such disinformation thrives. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Center for Countering Digital Hate is the political advocacy group I mentioned in the nomination, with the two PDFs hosted on "filesusr.com" (I don't know what the deal is with that site, but typically, being on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist does not say a lot of great things about a source's reliability). I don't think that this PDF rises to the level of something we should be using to source an article on a BLP; if the primary sources in the newspapers etc. were writing about the guy in any context other than briefly mentioning his name as appearing in a list, that'd be one thing, but we don't even have that, we just have a random PDF from the Internet that doesn't seem to have been reviewed or published anywhere besides some guy's website. jp×g 🗯️ 04:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment below are significant coverage, the first only partially an interview, the latter, academic

Brumfiel, Geoff (12 May 2021). "NPR". For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates, Misinformation Is Part Of A Business. Archived from the original on 19 May 2021. Retrieved 19 May 2021.

Jarry, Jonathan (11 July 2020). "Popular Health Guru Sayer Ji Curates the Scientific Literature with His Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy". Office for Science and Society. Archived from the original on 4 February 2021. Retrieved 19 May 2021. Djflem (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NPR article's good but I'm still concerned that all these sources are about the WP:ONEEVENT of this group publishing the PDF about him being in a disinformation dozen. jp×g 🗯️ 03:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing ONEEVENT? Doesn't seem the two above references mention anything about a PDF being published about him, so seems hardly like an event. Djflem (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GreenMedInfo has or had a high traffic web presence. Even if readership has declined over the years, I think the site and its creator are still notable. Being included on the "disinformation dozen" list supports this as well. People use CDNs to host content. A lot of content isn't even publicly available. Let's judge the source, not the web host.ScienceFlyer (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe? I admit it's close to the notability line. There was significant buzz around him when I started the page, I'm surprised at the low amount of coverage since then. Still, I added a little extra material including elements from a nine-page section on him and Brogan in a book published this summer. Curious to see how it turns out. Robincantin (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources already cited plus those since HEY satisfy GNG. Djflem (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, although personally I couldn't care less. I think the consensus has changed in that articles that shame a living person who is otherwise notable can remain. I note, for the record, that this is a change from the usual outcome during 2007-2009. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is no consensus to delete (and indeed, not a single participant supporting outright deletion rather than an alternative), and a policy-compliant argument that the available sources are sufficient to support notability separate from that of the author. BD2412 T 02:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Story (Minogue book)

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. It could possibly be merged/redirected to Dannii Minogue as an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dannii Minogue. Just an autobiography of a celebrity. Not worthy of a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added a review from the Evening Standard. I also have two examples of the book being referred to as a "bestselling autobiography": The Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph. I'm not sure where to access UK best-seller lists to verify this, but it indicates notability. Toughpigs (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also briefly reviewed in The Guardian, and covered by John Harris in the same publication. Sales also mentioned by The Bookseller[4][5]. Οἶδα (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how citing book reviews that (in two out of three cases) report the book to be non-notable is evidence of notability. (An honest question about WP norms, not a snarky attack. If multiple RS review a book and say in effect “this is not an important book” does the fact that they covered it at all make it notable?) Llajwa (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llajwa: The quality of the book isn't relevant to the notability; a bad book can be just as notable as a good one. If the book was a best-seller, then it's likely to be notable. Critics saying it's not important do contribute to notability. Toughpigs (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs: Granted that a bad book can be notable, but does RS coverage which says only that the book is bad, in the absence of other evidence, establish notability? If newspapers print brief reviews of a celebrity's book saying "don't waste your time on this pointless book" - and there's no other coverage and sales are poor - would those reviews by themselves constitute notability?

It seems analogous to children of celebrities - profiles of the parent will likely mention the children by name, but that in itself does not make those children notable. Llajwa (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, two of the reviews mention that the book was a "bestselling autobiography." Toughpigs (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~There's also one from the Daily Mail that I'll add later.~~ --Ouro (blah blah) 12:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to comment. The DM piece was uninteresting, but I frankly do not have it in me at the moment to look for something else than the West Australian piece. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review soures brought to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All right, added one more short from the SMH, I guess this makes the book passable although it's scrapin' the bottm of the barrel. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dannii Minogue, per Necrothesp above. Llajwa (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Harris, John (2010-12-13). "Why celebrity memoirs rule publishing". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  The review notes: "While we're here, consider also the enticing kick-off passage of My Story, by Dannii Minogue ... This does not quite get me hooked, though I persevere. But more of that later. ... I begin with Minogue's My Story, because she is the one contemporary celeb author I have met: at a west London branch of TGI Fridays circa 1997, when we fell into a weird and bitter argument about whether Robbie Williams should be blamed for losing himself in drink and drugs after exiting Take That. I sympathised with him; she, like a true show-must-go-on veteran of an Australian institution called Young Talent Time, did not – and it all got rather heated and shouty. Which is more than can be said for My Story, in which most of her anecdotes fall flat, like the kind of pub stories that are followed by pregnant silences."
2. "Dannii Minogue: My Story". Evening Standard. 2010-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  The review notes: "Considered a snip for an advance of just £300,000, this one proves to be a snore. Minogue thanks “book writing partner” Terry Ronald, her gay friend and music producer, which makes the passages starring him, presumably also written by him, read oddly. ... Otherwise, it’s bland and uninformative."
3. Keenan, Amanda (2010-12-07). "Book Review: My Story - Dannii Minogue". The West Australian. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  The review notes: "That's what I'd say if she didn't come off so bloody likeable and this book wasn't so frightfully fascinating (in a fluffy, fly-on-the wall way, of course). Call me a tragic pop culture vulture but My Story is 300-odd pages of mindless celebrity deliciousness."
4. Dugdale, John (2010-12-11). "Celebrity memoirs for Christmas - review". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  The review notes: "Minogue, in her co-written, predictably perky My Story (Simon & Schuster, £18.99), comically depicts virtuous puzzlement as her sole response to other celebs' misbehaviour, as when rival X Factor judge Sharon Osbourne berates her; luckily, though, she somehow remembers Osbourne's stream of insults perfectly. Image is all for Katie and Dannii, yet both books strangely have gobsmackingly dreadful photos."
5. Hornery, Andrew (2010-09-25). "Mum-in-law's the word for Minogue". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  The article notes: "While the tome will probably never make into the annals of the great literary contributions of our time, Minogue plans to leave her mark, especially within the genteel Sydney society circles McMahon moved in. Indeed Minogue has been spruiking the book in Britain this week and paying a lot of attention to the significant portion devoted to her marriage and divorce from Julian McMahon."
6. "On the Coffee Table". The Mercury. 2010-11-26. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  The review notes: "This book is juicy and for one main reason: It details, for the first time, Minogue"s marriage to Julian McMahon and her lack of relationship with his mother, Lady Sonia McMahon. ... A surprisingly enjoyable read. "
7. "Dannii - tell all - shocks - Dannii Minogue". Northern Territory News. 2010-10-12. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  The review notes: "In her new autobiography My Story, Minogue incorrectly spells the name of Australia's most famous street and the place that made her sister Kylie a household name. ... Released in Australia on November 2, My Story is a candid revelation of Minogue's rise from Johnny Young Talent Time to a judge on Britain's X Factor, watched by more than 16 million people."
8. Adams, Cameron (2010-12-09). "Dannii Happy Returns". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  The article notes: "In her candid autobiography My Story she reveals the drama behind announcing her pregnancy last year. ... The chapter about how Lady Sonia McMahon treated her while married to her son Julian is titled 'A Lady in name only'. ... The book also delves into Minogue watching her sister survive cancer while losing her best friend to the disease."
9. Scicluna, Sarah-Kate (2010-11-20). Sprogis, Elvira (ed.). "On the Shelf - Books". The Newcastle Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  The review notes: "From shocking Lady Sonia McMahon mother-in-law tales to a tug-at-the-heart-strings story of losing her best friend to cancer, there's more to Dannii Minogue than most people give her credit for. From this raw and deeply personal work, it's clear that she's done the hard yards. I was always a Kylie fan. I still am. But boy, am I a Dannii fan now, too."
10. Coster, Alice; Webber, Nicola; McMahon, Kate (2010-12-22). "It's Dannii's story warts and all". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  The article notes: "A beaming Dannii Minogue was ready to tell and sell her bestseller My Story yesterday. ... Minogue's autobiography has been a huge hit in Britain, where she has been praised for not glossing over difficult points in her life."
11. McGovern, Derek; Shaw, John (2010-10-08). "Filth should cover it - Result!". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  The review notes: "I picked up My Story by Dannii Minogue yesterday and I was stunned - I didn't know she knew anything about my story. In it she charts her brave fight to emerge from sister Kylie's shadow, her rise to popularity as an X Factor judge, and her status as one of the most desirable women in pop."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow My Story to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Just because it's trash doesn't mean it's not notable. In fact, as noted above, ghost-written celebrity autobiographies tend to be best-sellers with lots of reviews in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayer Ji

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

I'm not seeing it. This is a WP:COATRACK -- we've got the cost of a subscription to his website in the article? We've got details on his use of affiliate links?

None of the sources are about him in a significant way. We've got a lot of information coming from unreliable sources: a bio of the guy on a talent booking website, not one but two PDFs hosted on "filesusr.com" written by a political advocacy group... note that I literally can't even link these URLs in the AfD despite being an admin because they are on the global spam blacklist...

his own websites, etc. The closest thing we get to sigificant, neutral third-party coverage is this blog post (which is for some reason in the ref list twice, as #4 and also #13). This Wired article mentions him once, in a single paragraph, in the sentence: Prominent pandemic deniers include a number of keen yoga practitioners, such as alternative health proponent Sayer Ji, who runs the website greenmedinfo.com, and his wife Kelly Brogan, who describes herself as a ‘holistic psychiatrist.’ This The Hill article also mentions him once, in a list with twelve other people. That's it. Here is a single fact check page about something that was on his website. This isn't significant coverage and the guy is not notable. jp×g 🗯️ 22:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Conspiracy theories, COVID-19, Medicine, Internet, Florida, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He has been extensively commented on by skeptic blogger David Gorski: [6] and [7], to give two examples. Those are blog entries and therefore don't count for notability (although Gorski is a subject-matter expert; he is a surgeon and frequent contributor to sciencebasedmedicine.org.) Ji was also named as one of the "disinformation dozen" responsible for most of social media's antivaccine misinformation by the Center for Countering Digital Hate: [8]. I'm reluctant to vote keep because I am unsure whether those together would count for notability. But Ji is a major player in the antivax disinformation world, and having an article (properly-sourced and in line with WP:FRINGE) on him would help fill the vacuum where such disinformation thrives. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Center for Countering Digital Hate is the political advocacy group I mentioned in the nomination, with the two PDFs hosted on "filesusr.com" (I don't know what the deal is with that site, but typically, being on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist does not say a lot of great things about a source's reliability). I don't think that this PDF rises to the level of something we should be using to source an article on a BLP; if the primary sources in the newspapers etc. were writing about the guy in any context other than briefly mentioning his name as appearing in a list, that'd be one thing, but we don't even have that, we just have a random PDF from the Internet that doesn't seem to have been reviewed or published anywhere besides some guy's website. jp×g 🗯️ 04:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment below are significant coverage, the first only partially an interview, the latter, academic

Brumfiel, Geoff (12 May 2021). "NPR". For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates, Misinformation Is Part Of A Business. Archived from the original on 19 May 2021. Retrieved 19 May 2021.

Jarry, Jonathan (11 July 2020). "Popular Health Guru Sayer Ji Curates the Scientific Literature with His Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy". Office for Science and Society. Archived from the original on 4 February 2021. Retrieved 19 May 2021. Djflem (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NPR article's good but I'm still concerned that all these sources are about the WP:ONEEVENT of this group publishing the PDF about him being in a disinformation dozen. jp×g 🗯️ 03:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing ONEEVENT? Doesn't seem the two above references mention anything about a PDF being published about him, so seems hardly like an event. Djflem (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GreenMedInfo has or had a high traffic web presence. Even if readership has declined over the years, I think the site and its creator are still notable. Being included on the "disinformation dozen" list supports this as well. People use CDNs to host content. A lot of content isn't even publicly available. Let's judge the source, not the web host.ScienceFlyer (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe? I admit it's close to the notability line. There was significant buzz around him when I started the page, I'm surprised at the low amount of coverage since then. Still, I added a little extra material including elements from a nine-page section on him and Brogan in a book published this summer. Curious to see how it turns out. Robincantin (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources already cited plus those since HEY satisfy GNG. Djflem (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, although personally I couldn't care less. I think the consensus has changed in that articles that shame a living person who is otherwise notable can remain. I note, for the record, that this is a change from the usual outcome during 2007-2009. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agustín Fiorilli

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

The sole source provided so far does not mention him significantly, rather in passing (as someone who was just from somewhere). The proposed garden covers all Argentine olympians. Competing and nothing more does not earn you a pass on the GNG. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Argentina. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying he's notable, but User:InvadingInvader deserves a WP:TROUT for trying to A7 speedy this two-time Olympian. Someone with your experience should know better... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deserve it – I should have prodded or AfD'd first. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Darius Dhlomo article. Had forgot about him. Darius Dhlomo, Sander.v.Ginkel and Lugnuts - there's a trio for the history books.
That being said I found this good piece as well as this interview-heavy piece, this more-than-passing report on a swimming event and this report on a relay record (that has since been beat). We get several details, such as Fiorilli's nickname being Rana, he was offered a berth at CA River Plate, etc. Also, Pablo Abal told about being offered scholarships in the US. For a 1996 swimmer, coverage would have been off the (current) internet. Geschichte (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I think it should not be soft deleted, weak keep per above. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources found above. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good sourcing from User:Geschichte. Llajwa (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's much better sourced than many similar articles here. Also, some kind of a record could be taken in account. Better Nuncio (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Cave, Shmankivtsi

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

A small local cave in Ternopil Oblast (Ukraine), not significant, is not a monument of nature, without history, without geological discoveries. Микола Василечко (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Микола Василечко (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
… and with sources authored by Volodymyr Dobrianskyi [uk] already in the article. Your personal estimation of significance is not what we base things on. Notability is not subjective, and fame and importance was rejected as a criterion in 2004. Unless you have a counterargument to the several sources in the article, that at first blush appear to be authored by a Ukrainian expert in the field and give multiple detailed physical characteristics of the subject at hand, you do not have an argument for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Uncle G but would like to see one source that's not from Dobrianskyi. My search quickly became difficult, but can't yet argue for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 10:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources listed in the article and described by Uncle G above make a prima facie case for notability that has not been refuted. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In enwiki is 9 pages about caves in Ukraine. Really in Ukraine more caves about which there are no articles and which have natural history, cultural history, etc. Fox Cave (Really name is English? Please source for this name. ) is not without nature history, without geological history. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadhossein Khosravi

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

Fails the general and biographical notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Please see below. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He plays in the professional league of Iran. So, he considers WP:FOOTYN. Mehdighayedi (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC) — Mehdighayedi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
FOOTYN does not apply (and neither does WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 19:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It has satisfactory coverage in Persian, and even an article in Kurdish wiki, the biggest problem is translating the content into English. Svartner (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a summary of the sources. Giant Snowman 19:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll amend that to: Please provide WP:THREE. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the persian wiki article there is not only three, but 9 additional sources [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. It's enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:THREE. I'm not going to look at nine. And that's not how WP:SIGCOV works. please read and understand WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartner: Also, sports notability, like all notability, is not the same across different language wikis. What may be allowed on fa-wiki may not qualify as notable on en-wiki. In this case, this topic does not pass our requirements. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources provided above are exclusively passing mentions in routine transactional news and match recaps, with a couple non-secondary interviews/press conferences thrown in. Can people please stop ref-bombing with blatantly unusable things like According to the D-Sport website; 23-year-old defensive midfielder Mohammad Hossein Khosravi, former Mes Kerman and Astara Municipality, joined Fajarshahid Sepasi with a contract.? JoelleJay (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless good sources are documented on this discussion. Llajwa (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Passing mentions in mill news, listings, etc, nothing SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clinomorphism

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

WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of significant coverage in medically-suitable reliable sources. In any case, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Health and fitness, and Medicine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a single GScholar hit. Owen× ☎ 23:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can find nothing to support this at all. What little there is, is very clearly taken from the longer 2005 version of this very article. (I excluded the very different and wholly unrelated concept that appears in translation from a Russian geologist. which does not appear to have caught on that I can see.) This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2024 (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!} 22:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this should be in Wiktionary, if it is even a term in use, which is unclear. Llajwa (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely Wiktionary material. Idunnox3 (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Campus Market

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

The Campus Market is a now-defunct website of no notable significance; appearing to shut down only about a year after its founding (with its last Instagram post dated May of 2016). It is more than likely that the purpose of this article's creation was to boost credibility, giving off the impact of being "written like an advertisement". It does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability requirement for companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B3v3nt33n (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable self promotion. Llajwa (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the article needs work, but this should be fixed by improvement, not deletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Colborne Lankester

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

Nothing in this article can be verified. The only source I can find in relation to the existence of this individual is this journal article and a few forum and self published articles related to this individual published after 2022 (which I assume were taken from the journal article). Sohom (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Medicine, India, and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books tells me more about Alice Grace Fox Lankester than about her husband from the history books (ISBN 9780252098802 p. 314, UIP); and the other result is literally a professional directory (Churchill Medical Directory) that gives me this person's telephone number in 1962 (Walton-on-Thames 24862), a bunch of post-nominals, two medical medals, a hospital superintendency, and "Director H.E.H. the Nizam's Med. & Sanit. Dept.". However "nothing in this article can be verified" is simply untrue. I followed up on the source for the tuberculosis programme, for one, and there it was in the source. It's also in the Medical Directory entry as "Special Deputation for Tuberc. Inquiry, Govt. India". The CMS sources cited are not findable by me, but I did find other CMS sources at least listing this person as a missionary, verifying at least that fact in the article too. There is a handful of little sources that do join up. A detailed obituary would definitely swing it, although I've only found a 1-sentence death listing so far. Uncle G (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G I agree the "Nothing in this article can be verified." is hyperbole on my part. However, I would assume that there would be a non-zero number of sources on the "Serai System" being talked about here. I haven't been able to find any sources from that period talking about this system that this person invented/created (which makes up a large portion of the article as well as the claim to notability for this individual). Sohom (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Ebrahimi reference goes to some length to describe the Serai system in historical context, the role Lankaster played in developing it and disseminating it, and its origins in the locally recognizable architectures being adapted for a different use and a medical social function. There is a non-zero number of sources. Please see section 4 of the Ebrahimi article. [18]https://brill.com/view/journals/ehmh/79/1/article-p67_003.xml?language=en
  - Breamk (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - That source is fairly persuasive. Peer-reviewed on-topic journal; in-depth discussion; credentialed historian of architecture. I only looked for sources on the person rather than on that specific work. But there's a lot on the work from that source that complements the rather more sparse sources on the life that together give us enough about life and works to make an in-depth article, which I think can get us over the bar. You can expand upon the wife from the aforementioned UIP book, by the way. A quick look for the hospital shows several mid-20th-century sources mentioning the brother Cecil Lankester in association with it. So there are two things already that the article has scope for further expansion upon. Uncle G (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: weak, but sources below meet GNG. (edited 20:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC), see comment below)
Delete: see below. 09:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Meets SIGCOV	1. Ebrahimi, Sara Honarmand (2022). "Medical Missionaries and the Invention of the "Serai Hospital" in North-western British India". European Journal for the History of Medicine and Health. 79: 67–93. doi:10.1163/26667711-bja10013.
Fails WP:IS	2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Beginnings in India, by Eugene Stock (1917)". anglicanhistory.org. Retrieved 2023-12-09.
Fails WP:IS	3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Oxenham, John (1918). Vernon Harold Starr 1882-1918 and after. London: Church Missionary Society. p. Chpt 2. Retrieved 8 January 2024.
~~Meets SIGCOV~~ (See below) [19]	4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Lankester, Arthur (1920). Tuberculosis in India its prevalence, causation and treatment (Accessed via googlebooks ed.). London: Butterworth and Co. p. 317. Retrieved 8 January 2024.
Fails WP:IS	5. ^ Jump up to:a b Church Missionary Society (1894). "Register of Missionaries (1804-1894)". Church Missionary Society Periodicals.
Fails WP:IS	6. ^ Lankester, Arthur Colborne (1895). "Annual Medical Mission Breakfast". British Medical Association: 77–81 – via Church Missionary Society Periodicals.
Brief mention, (better link [20])	7. ^ "From Tomb to Hospital: Pakistan Army's Conservation of Peshawar's Heritage Monument". Pakistan Defence. 2023-05-20. Retrieved 2023-12-09.
Fails WP:IS	8. ^ Lankester, Arthur (1912). "The Needs of the N. W. Frontier". Mercy and Truth 16. 16: 297.
Fails WP:IS	9. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Annual Meeting". Preaching and Healing: The Report of the CMS Medical Mission Auxiliary for 1905-1906: 24. 1906.
Fails WP:IS	10. ^ "Keswick Convention Medical Mission Meeting". Mercy and Truth. 106: 296. 1905.
Fails SIGCOV	11. ^ "Henry Martyn-Clark 1857 - 1916". Henry Martyn-Clark 1857 - 1916. Retrieved 2023-12-09.

// Timothy :: talk 08:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue The 3rd source you mention is written by the subject of this article, "Arther Lankester". That (imo) should be in the "Fails WP:IS" category. Sohom (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did I miss that... // Timothy :: talk 09:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A comment by a grandson

At the age of 82, I am Arthur Lankester's eldest surviving grandchild. I remember him well. I have a type-written copy of his autobiography. I turned that into a paper back book, a copy of which which is now held in the Church Mission Society Crowther library in Oxford.

I realise that I suffer from having a conflict of interest, as does the autobiography. However, it seems a pity if the best available source has to be largely ignored. My initial reaction on reading the article's text and the reasons for deletion was that it seemed a pity to throw away this information but that, unless the text of the article can be made more accurate, it would be best to delete the article.

I need to learn much more about the Wikipedia editing process but it appears to me that the main reasons proposed for deletion are that he was not sufficiently notable, the lack of independent sources, and that the article is an orphan.

Notability I am obviously biased here but he founded the Mission Hospital in Peshawar and was very much involved in the founding of the Osmania hospital in Hyderabad. He was awarded the Kaiser-i-Hind medal (Second class in silver) in 1908. (See the Indian Medical Gazette, August 1908 Page 317.) In his position of Director of Medical and Sanitary Services for Hyderabad, he was effectively in charge of the health services of a small country. His book "Tuberculosis in India" is still an important text and the Wikipedia Article could (if corrected provide useful background material to this subject.) (By the way, his job in Hyderabad was not a Government of India post as is stated in the article; he was recruited by the Nizam and his staff.) (See the Englishman's Overland Mail for 5 February 1920, the Times Obituary of 21 November 1963.)

Independent Sources Google provides plenty of sources about his work in Peshawar; there is even a picture of a memorial to him in the Burg Said Khan, which later became the hospital chapel. Of particular note are articles by Dr Ali Jan, a prominent local historian in Peshawar. I will produce a list. There is rather less written about his work in Hyderabad but the best article is in the Englishman's Overland Mail of 5 Feb 1920.

I do not fully understand the problem of the article being "an orphan". Once a Wikipedia page had been produced there are many web pages that could be linked to it.

I apologise for my poor understanding of how Wikipedia works and will return when I have more references. Jim462 (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim462 I think if you can find links/clippings/evidence to some of the articles by Dr Ali Jan and the obituary, we could put this over notability. Based on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5183017/?page=1 the Indian Medical Gazette source counts as a mention. Searching Dr. A. C. Lankester shows us some sources, however, I'm unsure if they are related to your grandfather? For example, I found this article in the The Lancet on p191-121 is this about the subject or somebody else ? Sohom (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_East_and_the_West/ejEMAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Dr.+A.+C.+Lankester&pg=PA222&printsec=frontcover is also another source I found which seems to be a mention of the subject. Sohom (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Church_Missionary_Soc/860_AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Dr.+%22A.+C.+Lankester%22&pg=PA118&printsec=frontcover is another one as well. Sohom (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv27qzr8k provides some context about him and his work on Tuberculosis in India (I think). Sohom (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if additional sources are accessible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Hi User:Jim462, I'm writing as a history professor and I know something about the history of British India. I think your grandfather was a historically interesting, notable figure. The problem with this article is that it is essentially original research (WP:OR) combined with a single good secondary source (Ebrahimi 2022). (The Pakistan Defense article link is broken.) I suspect if you did some reading in the historical literature on medicine in British India you would find more references to him, which would support a Wikipedia page on him. Alternatively, you could write a brief paper about him for a historical journal based on your own research - he has other publications in his own lifetime besides those mentioned here - but that original research cannot be the basis for a Wikipedia page. Llajwa (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more IS references to him by historians, on JSTOR:

BRIMNES, NIELS. “Vikings against Tuberculosis: The International Tuberculosis Campaign in India, 1948-1951.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, vol. 81, no. 2, 2007, pp. 407–30. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44452113. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "The first extensive discussion of tuberculosis in India was written by Dr. Arthur Lankester in 1920, and he estimated that..."
[Mentioned by User:Sohom above] VENKAT, BHARAT JAYRAM. “To Cure an Earthquake.” At the Limits of Cure, Duke University Press, 2021, pp. 23–76. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv27qzr8k.5. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "Arthur Lankester , who appears later in this chapter, took a slightly diff er ent view, contending..."
Bottomore, Stephen. “Early Missionary Filming and the Emergence of the Professional Cameraman.” Beyond the Screen: Institutions, Networks, and Publics of Early Cinema, edited by Marta Braun et al., Indiana University Press, 2016, pp. 19–26. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bmznbd.5. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "Stock noted of Cash’s film of Dr. Lankester of Peshawar that “... the sudden sight of Dr. Arthur Lankester walking down the Khyber Pass among the camels will not soon be forgotten by those who were present that night”. Eugene Stock, The History of the Church Missionary Society ... vol. 4 (London: CMS, 1916), 503."

Also see:

Rao, B. Eswara. “From Rajayak s(h)Ma (‘Disease of Kings’) to ‘Blackman’s Plague’: Perceptions on Prevalence and Aetiology of Tuberculosis in the Madras Presidency, 1882–1947.” The Indian economic and social history review 43, no. 4 (2006): 457–485. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/001946460604300403. "In 1915, the Government of India circulated to all the Presidencies a compre- hensive report submitted by Arthur Lankester on the prevalence of the disease along with certain suggestions..."
Venkat, Bharat Jayram. “A Vital Mediation: The Sanatorium, before and after Antibiotics.” Technology and culture 60, no. 4 (2019): 979–1003. https://muse-jhu-edu.revproxy.brown.edu/article/741380. "As a result of the Lucknow resolution, an ex-medical missionary and Director of the Medical and Sanitation Department for the Nizam of Hy- derabad named Arthur Lankester traveled across Burma and India for eleven months collecting evidence concerning the prevalence of tuberculo- sis on the subcontinent. In particular, Lankester drew on the accounts of women medical missionaries and physicians, whose work in the zenanas made them among the vanguard in detecting tuberculosis among Indians. His informants assured him that there was “scarcely a zenana . . . which has not some case of tuberculosis!”20 Reinforcing the importance of missionary intervention, he noted that women confined to zenanas were usually un- able or unwilling to leave their home in order to seek medical treatment."

Llajwa (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The world expert on tubercolosis under the British Raj seems to be this UCLA historian: [[21]], who discusses Arthur Lankester in two of his publications I cited above - if you email him at the address given, he might be interested in corresponding with you. Llajwa (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should get back yo my own work but I've been reading Venkat's prizewinning book on tuberculosis, At the Limits of Cure, which discusses Lankester's work in chapter one - it's quite fascinating. It's free on JSTOR. I hope you will make your grandfather's autobiography available online. Llajwa (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I admit I want to keep this article. Strike my delete above based on:

Meets SIGCOV: [22]
Meets SIGCOV: [23]
Meets SIGCOV: [24]. The article alone doesn't meet SIGCOV, but the film it mentions would meet probably meet SIGCOV so together I think this passes.

I didn't look at others because this was enough for me to think it meets WP:N. I rarely use the sources must exist claim, but in this case there probably is more out there. The above discussion I think shows persons interested in the subject and willing to discuss sources and improve the article. If we applied the standards we use for athletes and entertainers to academics this would be a speedy keep.

@Jim462:, I hope your family is happy and blessed. Greetings from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 20:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Timothy. I will continue to follow this up. I have had copies printed of his 220 page autobiography so with that I have not, until now, needed to research him on other sources. The conflict of interest rules of Wikipedia make it difficult for me to correct the page. (As just one little example, my grandparents had 4 children, not one child as stated in Wikipedia. - my father Stephen born in Hyderabad, my uncles Christopher and Arthur Hugh, and my aunt Dorothea all 3 of whom were born in Peshawar.)

Sources about his time in Hyderabad are more difficult to find than those about Peshawar. For example, when ACL left Hyderabad Mr R I R Glancy the Minister of Finance wrote on 23 March 2020 commenting that ". . . the regard of the people which was strikingly exhibited in your election to the Chair of the Hyderabad Municipality, an honour, so far as I am aware, never before awarded to a European. yours sincerely, R I R Glancy". I am sure that this is true but I am equally sure that it will never appear in Wikipedia.

It should only take me a few days to obtain external evidence to prove that ACL was a sufficiently significant figure. The simple facts that he was awarded the Kaiser J Hind Medal (silver) (for his work in Peshawar) and that he was essentially the minister of health for a small country should be enough. However, achieving a full and accurate article will be more dificult.

Regards, John Lankester Jim462 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally would also support draftification/userification (to Jim462 if they are fine with it, else I'm willing to take a stab at it as well). I think I see enough sources to not support outright deletion. The current article, however, needs to be completely rewritten, based on my understanding, the subject is not that well known for his missionary pursuits, but rather for his medical pursuits with his most notable contribution being not the serai system (as the article current claims), but rather the fact that he conducted the first study on the prevalence of tuberculosis in India and was amongst the first to experiment and develop various methods of treating and preventing the spread of the disease in India. Sohom (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have some sympathy with the implication that the Wikipedia page over-emphasises the aspect of the serai hospital. ACL's own words on this subject were a comment on the founding of his first hospital in Peshawar (the predecessor of the current Mission Hospital).

I was taken by Yahyah Khan to one of these serais which had become vacant and could be rented at a cheap rate. It consisted of a central office room and one large and one smaller courtyard, both surrounded by rooms, connected together by a broad passage in winch was the tomb of a former Moslem Saint. There was a wide opening to a main road of the City. This seemed to me quite ideal for my immediate purpose, and I lost no time m acquiring it. It had been long used as a halting-place by the very people whom I hoped to reach, so was familiar ground to them. Dirty and untidy as were all the rooms they were soon transformed by free use of whitewash: mud floors replaced by cement, and worn woodwork repaired and painted. There was one large room which was transformed into a quite serviceable operating theatre. The smaller serai was a quadrangle surrounded by about 25 rooms; these needed only cleansing and re-flooring, without structural alteration, as it was my intention to let diem be used by whole families with their sick relatives, from which they would not wish to be separated. This was a most successful plan, though not ideal from the strictly “hospital” point of view, and I reproduced it in the new hospital, erected later on. There was a convenient covered space in one corner of the mam serai where patients could gather; and upper storey rooms for use by the resident house-surgeon. Other amenities included a square tank at one corner of the enclosure, with water laid on for washing.

I agree that ACL's most important work was on Tuberculosis in India. However his missionary work was also important as it founded the existing Mission Hospital. Dr Ali Jan, a prominent local historian in Peshawar, has commented to me that ACL was a "legendary figure" in Peshawar. ACL also made an important contribution in Hyderabad in combating the 1919 influenza epidemic and in some of the planning for the current Osmania Hospital. Jim462 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I need to study Wikipedia processes in more detail, and how draftification/userification works especially in an area where one has a conflict of interests. John Lankester Jim462 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i’m open to correction on this, but my understanding is that you have the right to edit this article freely, according to the rules and norms of Wikipedia, like any other editor, as long as your relationship to the subject is disclosed, as it is. You are free to correct errors of fact, if you have documentation to support it, and also to remove incorrect or uncertain information which lacks adequate sourcing. Llajwa (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many people are notable not for one thing, but for a body of work(s). Easily passes SIGCOV of people who lived pre-Internet. I would not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Bengali

AfDs for this article:

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

Historical scholarship barely documents our subject. Fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. The article was initially deleted after an AfD request by @TrangaBellam: and the article creator was involved in WP:Canvassing which is classified as disruptive behaviour according to the Wikipedia guidelines. This article should be deleted. Jaunpurzada (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link to previous AfD: [25].-- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous AFD fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Soft deletion was used in the previous AFD so it is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:N.Tame Rhino (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion and WP:NOTINHERITED. His alleged notability seems to rest in that he studied under other scholars and was locally famous. That's never been enough at English WP. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice against draftification upon request. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JPods

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

Non-notable product concept. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:PROMO/WP:COI concerns as well -- the article's creator appears to be associated with the product, and the page has been deleted twice for notability and spam reasons and then re-created by the same user. Jfire (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Jfire (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 19:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be salted this time. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Previously PROD'd article so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No product, no implementation, no article. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another day another person trying to reinvent the train. While there is no current implementation, it is mentioned in several news articles including the Boston Globe. The article as it stands now is bad though. I'd be willing to rewrite it if keep is agreed. Also, User:BillJamesMN should be blocked from editing because he's the founder of this and it's a clear conflict of interest. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support draftify as an ATD if you want to rewrite it! Jfire (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another angle: Is the company notable for anything at all? Actually putting a product on the streets, any kind of product? If not, maybe the founder might be notable? @User:StreetcarEnjoyer: While I see the articles... okay... if there are articles for the concept that can be used, fine, otherwise it's just... well... next of kin to speculation if they haven't actually got anything to show. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider option of draftifying as suggested by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Atacama Region teachers' strike

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

Not notable enough for its own article. Little coverage. Could well be merged into the Education in Chile article. Also this has been created by Dentren's suspected sockpuppet Guariflor. Bedivere (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Bedivere (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep Definitely a sub-par article, but has some sources, also if it affected many students it might be notable.

Geardona (talk to me?) 17:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it warrants it's own article. Perhaps create one for the Local Public Education Service and merge it. Bedivere (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Atacama Region. The sourcing is routine news coverage and does not indicate notability, but there is information relevant to the target article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this event is not notable enough for a separate article (which I haven't checked yet), then it's certainly not important enough in the history of the Atacama region to appear in that article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: It has sources but NOTNEWS and LASTING are concerns. I think drafting and seeing if something LASTING appears. // Timothy :: talk 20:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Underwood Fitch

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

Checking for reliable sources, I only find https://www2.northwestmuseum.org/museum/participant-fitch-alice-underwood-3477.htm. If that biography precedes the Wikipedia article then the Wikipedia article is a clear copyright violation. If the Wikipedia article precedes the posted biography at the Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture, then using it as a source would be circular. I am not finding much else in WP:BEFORE to bring this up to wiki standards. Bringing it to the group for consideration. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Artists --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I've added a couple of sources found via Google newspapers. She was apparently a highly respected artist in her era. — Maile (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maile66. Do you think the Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture bio came before the Wikipedia? and if so, do you see copyvio as I do? https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Alice+Underwood+Fitch&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the copyvio. I can't tell which came first. What do you say about it? — Maile (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. That's why I brought it here. I am hoping someone with more forensic skills can help. I don't want to rewrite if it is circular. The article was creating in 2012 by an SPA --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article was originally written in 2012 I suspect it came first and citing that NW museum bio would be circular. -- asilvering (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Asilvering. I was just looking at Earwig's copyvio detector with a magnifying glass, and the museum article is definitely dated "Site Design ©2021 Klündt | Hosmer", which was 9 years after the Fitch article. — Maile (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed https://www2.northwestmuseum.org/museum/participant-fitch-alice-underwood-3477.htm as a reference, assuming it was copied from Wikipedia. I hae also removed uncited material. That pretty much leaves her local obituary and the fact that she was decorated with the Ordre des Palmes Académiques in 1908. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NARTIST. Here is her obituary. [36] has details of her occupation before becoming an artist. [37], [38], and ProQuest 318932850 cover her receiving the Palmes Académiques. Jfire (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by @Jfire. Lijil (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found during AfD. Ben Azura (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Ahuja

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

Subject does not qualify under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO or any other policies. Royal88888 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Businesspeople. Royal88888 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Technology, Maharashtra, New Jersey, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not satisfy WP:PROF for sure. Don't see WP:ANYBIO either. Qflib (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet PROF.Tame Rhino (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF, WP:NOTWEBHOST. SVP's in industry are the equivalent of associate professors in academia; they are rarely notable. This reads like a resume, and we have never been a LinkedIn-style free web host. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pari Bishnoi

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

internet personality not notable in own merit, violation of WP:NOTINHERITED, some news about deportation but nothing WP:SUSTAINED. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I already moved it to draftspace before, but the author recreated it. Also deserves to be deleted as per the nom. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTINHERITED and I'm unable to find sources that would help the subject meet WP:GNG on their own, even though there is some coverage about her wedding. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notabilty --Devokewater|(tαlk) 11:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am dubious of the claim that she is a state official, but if true, then she would pass WP:POL. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deyan Velkov

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

In researching this one, I've dug quite far back in Bulgarian archives. Darik News, Gong and Topsport were the best that I could find. All of those are passing mentions of Velkov and do not demonstrate WP:SPORTBASIC #5. No apparent active career and he last made a professional appearance almost 20 years ago so I see no reason to retain in draft. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater|(tαlk) 11:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states in 221

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

Yes, you read the title correctly. I think it's fairly obvious that this fails all notability criteria, and would be of no use as a redirect even to List of political entities in the 3rd century. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might give it a pass if it had some sort of sourcing. I really don't see the need. These lists seem to be chronological by year since... I'm not sure really. The years 221 and 223 anyway, based on the box at the bottom. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's redundant as per comment above, and the article doesn't make it clear what its inclusion criteria are. E.g. it lists "Saxons" as a sovereign state. What's that supposed to mean? Was there a single sovereign ruling over all Saxon people? Cortador (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A clear NLIST fail. No sourcing, lots of OR, significant omissions and what exactly is special about 221? How are states defined? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better to have category about the subject. Azuredivay (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom --Devokewater|(tαlk) 11:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST. This is random. Why no 311? Why not West Saxons and Northeastern Saxons? Bearian (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Mata

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

Inactive low level Albanian footballer with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found this and this in Panorama but neither of them would be considered significant as they are mostly just long quotes from the player but with no meaningful third party content. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McDaniels

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

Non notable coach/player with only affiliated sources and social media posts used to establish article. After a search I cannot find any non-affiliated sources regarding the subject.

Additionally, it appears the article may have been created by the own individual. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual likely writing his own WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : Coverage is all primary sources from schools/post-secondary institutions. This is all I could find and I don't think it's the same person [39]. delete regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. A simple google search turns up this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be arguable SIGCOV in the following sources (some mentioned above): "Freshman McDaniels promising quarterback for Hornets" and "McDaniels to start at quarterback in DSU opener, Black also will play" from the Delaware State News; "McDaniels right at home with UWA" from The Tuscaloosa News; and "Virginia football notebook: South County’s Jack McDaniels-to-Dillon Spalding connection is clicking" from The Washington Post. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Muboshgu and Oaktree b: Just letting you both know of the sources uncovered, in case either of you want to see. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Is a football coach at a US university notable? They don't attract much attention in Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sources are fine, if the position is notable, it could be a !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Eh, generally the head coaches at each level are notable, then coordinators and some position coaches in FBS are often notable as well; that said, McDaniels is only a position coach in an FCS (i.e. second-level) program. That is why I haven't taken a stance, as his position isn't really that notable but the sources are more than I expected for such a topic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Anyone can be notable, if they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of themselves. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I will re-review. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It lacks a single credible source and nothing noteworthy in the entire article. FreshTec843 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the explanation above. 14:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign my last post. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Cbl62 and BeanieFan. It appears to be enough SIGCOV to get past GNG. Not by much, but it is a pass. Frank Anchor 17:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more feedback on newly presented sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources presented so far are all ROTM and fail the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. ROTM is an essay and the sources plainly cover McDaniels "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" – which is all that is necessary. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I cited the GNG. Having the name appear in the Washington Post doesn't grant anyone inherent notability. Let'srun (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a plain WaPo mention doesn't grant auto-notability; but significant coverage in multiple sources does (usually), and more weight generally should be given when one of those sources is one of the US's nationally prominent newspapers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a bit weak). Isn't the strongest pass, but the fact that we have in-depth stories focusing on McDaniels from three newspapers, including the nationally prominent Washington Post, shows that this meets WP:GNG with sufficient WP:SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with the above mentioned significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Linton, Cambridgeshire. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linton Heights Junior School

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

The page in question clearly did not show any sign of notability. No notable alumni or any significant achievement as a school. Simple put that it fails WP: ORG Otuọcha (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As said previously, the article topic is clearly referenced in numerous reliable secondary sources thus indicating a degree of notability. Additionally sources indicate the school has received "internationally recognised" awards such as the green flag award, a notable achievement that can be expanded on. Fraz900 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly object to the deletion of this article. The article is about a notable and well-established junior school in Cambridgeshire, England. The article meets the general notability guideline and the specific notability guideline for schools. The article is informative, accurate, and unbiased. The article does not violate any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as verifiability, neutrality, or no original research. The article is not a personal attack, a hoax, a promotion, or a copyright violation. The article is not a duplicate of another article or a fork of a larger topic.

The article provides sufficient and reliable sources to support its claims. The article cites the school’s official website, and multiple news articles from a variety of publishers.

Therefore, the article should be kept and improved, rather than deleted. Deleting the article would deprive Wikipedia of valuable content and harm its credibility as a comprehensive encyclopedia. MattA 23:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattA Official (talk • contribs)

Merge/redirect to Linton, Cambridgeshire. I believe it's unusual for a primary/junior school to have its own article. The sources placed in this article can be used to verify facts but do not necessarily make the school notable under the GNG or WP:NORG. The CambridgeshireLive article[40] on the surface looks as though it may contribute towards the GNG, but infact probably doesn't because in essence it is an extraction of data to compile ratings for all local schools. The Saffron Walden Reporter [41] reports an achievement of the school, but the piece hardly amounts to WP:ORGDEPTH coverage and may infact be WP:ORGTRIV (I'm not being dismissive of the children's achievement in making this assertion). None of the other sources count towards notability because they are either listings in a directory, brief mentions, database entries or not independent of the school. In summary, not seeing sufficient sourcing satisfying GNG/NORG. Rupples (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Linton, Cambridgeshire. It is indeed very unusual for junior schools to have their own article, and I can not see that one justifies it. Bduke (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Barely eight years the school was founded. I saw some promotional content and as such, basic schools usually don't have article or press to publish their achievements. Probably may be press release or blog post. Otuọcha (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't actually founded eight years ago, that is an error. There was a previous establishment on the site by the same name. MattA 23:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattA Official (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Linton, Cambridgeshire as suggested by Rupples. Almost all the citations are from primary sources. Only two (the ones from the Saffron Walden Reporter) are unequivocally reliable sources. In any case, definitely not the direct, in-depth coverage WP:NORG or the GNG are looking for. Tserton (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Ruta

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

Non-notable researcher. Although he is highly cited in a highly cited field, he has no remarkable achievements. His profile: [42] Broc (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Italy. Broc (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't think that paleontology is such a high citation field: looking at other paleontologists, this is a solid citation record. The article is a stub, but at least not overly promotional, primary sourced, etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here's his University of Lincoln profile --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have done this before. Except in very rare cases, associate professors are not notable. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is yet another example of WP:TOOSOON to fully meet WP:NPROF. Probably will be notable in the fullness of time, but not yet. Qflib (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Courage

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

Apparently, this person is best known as the ex-spouse of someone without a Wikipedia article. WP:BEFORE shows little apart from gossip columns to do with said ex-spouse. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Fails WP:GNG Searches find only social media, gossip and stuff related to her ex and their break-up. No significant coverage of her in reliable sources. Neiltonks (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a pack of rumor mongering based on the worst kind of tabloid journalism. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Totally non-notable ex-spouse of a non-notable person. Sourced to tabloids and blogs. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Stars

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM. I searched Newspapers.com and ProQuest for reviews but other than an interview with Olivia d'Abo and a couple blurbs only found listings. While its seems it was an all-star cast, I noticed for some of them this film was before their breakthrough roles (Slater, Stone, d'Abo, Davis). S0091 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, It does not change much about the film's notability, in my opinion but, I'm sorry, I noticed for some of them this film was before their breakthrough roles (Slater, Stone, d'Abo, Davis). is at least not accurate concerning Slater. His breakthrough was earlier, as the article about him or sources I added to the article about this film clearly state (the LAT even called him a veteran actor then....(he was 18, yes)). Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see that now. S0091 (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: despite the article name, this isn't an astronomy topic. Praemonitus (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added sources. (More exist). Does meet WP:NFILM-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be very difficult to imagine how a film with a cast like that didn't meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This needs more than just existing or having notable people, as neither of those are notability granting on their own. So far I'm searching Newspapers.com and I can't find anything about this other than talk about it filming. I'm searching under both the working and final title and there's just nothing other than a few PR type blurbs in articles about the actors in relation to something else entirely or an announcement that it's filming. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it had a limited theatrical release per the wording "some theaters". My thought is that this wasn't quite direct to home video or made for TV fare, but it wasn't that far off either. This would explain the lack of reviews and other attention. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here's my rationale: there's just not much out there about this. It looks like this was a film that was quietly given a limited theatrical release in hopes of gaining an audience, but when that failed it was shuttled to TV where it just fell further into obscurity. I can't find any sourcing beyond a few mentions of filming, all of which look to be based on the same press release, and a few offhand mentions in articles written about the actors in regards to other projects or topics. Of the sourcing in the article, what we have is pretty light. I'm definitely of the "a review is a review regardless of length" camp, but I only really recommend using those when there's at least one meaty review to bolster them. One of the more lengthy mentions is the Italian source, which I will note was self-published. I don't see where the author is particularly seen as a RS themselves so I have to consider this a SPS that is unusable as far as notability goes. Other than that we have very brief listings in Videohound, Leonard Maltin's 2013 Movie Guide, and The Sci-Fi Movie Guide. These sources are frequently challenged in AfDs and I seem to remember a general agreement that Videohound is unusable for notability purposes since it does actually go out of its way to include every film possible. Maltin is somewhat usable as it is a bit more exclusive, but it still gets flack when it comes up. The Sci-Fi book is a bit more specific, but the listing is so short and feels like more of a database listing than a review. None of these are really great or strong sources. Other than that, the other sources are basically just mentions of filming or database listings that say that the film exists without giving any sort of discussion. This just doesn't pass NFILM based on the available sourcing and I can't find any evidence that there ever was more substantial coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just added an assessment in FIlmDienst. Not sure you'll find it meaty enough, but still. The German WP mentions, among other things, 5+2 pages about the film in a biography of Stone. I couldn't check that claim, though. I for one, don't think they are needed as, all in all, I found this can really be considered OK. Yours. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Added French meat for you@ReaderofthePack: It does in my view seal the deal, but see for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this which has a bit background and the cinematographer's perspective but it also states is was never released in theaters. ?? S0091 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think Leonard Maltin's guide, plus the German and French reviews put it over the top. Clearly an unsuccessful, obscure film, but with a cast like this, surely notable enough to warrant a page. Toughpigs (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maltin's guide is a listing and the German source is a a brief synopsis, not a critical review. I can't independently assess the French review but based on the quotes provided it does appear to be a review. The cast in and of itself matters not unless WP:NFIC is proven but that does not seem to be the case. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Leonard Maltin's Guide counts, as NFILM pretty explicitly states that To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database (though I have no strong opinion on the other sources). VickKiang (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage present to pass WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per good sourcing with famous cast members. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article does have sufficient coverage to be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.11.113 (talk • contribs)
Keep - Per WP:HEY and with thanks to Mushy Yank and others for adding sources. There has been a lack of sourcing discussion on this AfD, and a few reviews at the time of release do not show notability, although, per WP:SUSTAINED, they might if they happen over a long period. However, sources added to the page include the Sci Fi movie guide and other books, that collate this and do demonstrate sustained interest. I think the three books added to support the text "Beyond the Stars was noted for its ”interesting cast’." themselves probably meet the criteria for GNG (significant mentions in independent reliable secondary sources, although with Readerofthepack's caution noted too). On a more personal note, I actually watched this movie years ago. On the other hand, I had all but forgotten its eminently forgettable script. But a movie doesn't have to be good to be notable. As has now been added to this page, this one is notable for being a bad movie with good actors. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FLY91

AfDs for this article:

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

Here we are again. Last AfD resulted in DRAFTIFY as an WP:ATD. Moved from draft space by only keep vote from last AfD. References added (other than Twitter) are announcements around it leasing aircraft on its way to launch. Still WP:TOOSOON and the churnalism doesn't add up to significant coverage. CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pinging previous participants as this was fairly recent - @Thewikizoomer:, @S5A-0043:, @MrSchimpf:, @Siroxo:.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unchanged from previous vote!; they may have leased an aircraft, but until it has a place to go and ticketed passengers, this still is not an active airline in any sense. Nate • (chatter) 19:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is some news, I agree that it may be WP:TOOSOON. Royal88888 (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draftify. Still WP:TOOSOON. S5A-0043^Talk 11:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The airline already has it's first plane VT-NUT running test proving flights in India. I do not think it is too soon or worthy of deletion. Aircraft was delivered 2 days ago and is leased from Mumbai based VMAN leasing.

Article definitely needs to be updated with the latest info. The first aircraft is an ex-TruJet ATR 72-600. Mkkm2112 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its first plane* (sorry - autocorrect) Mkkm2112 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the previous draftify, and the fact creator just attempted to draftify again after this discussion began, I think that would be the opposite of what needs to happen. I would actually recommend SALTing. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) asilvering (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dea Liane

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

A bit of a COATRACK, with lots of information about the film she starred in, but no evidence of Dea Liane being "critically acclaimed" for her role. The director certainly gets praised but Liane is only mentioned as one of the cast (albeit a leading member of the cast). A Google search reveals very little, suggesting Liane is only at the start of her film career. Fails WP:GNG Sionk (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. She received extensive coverage in multiple extremely reliable sources ( Le Monde, La Croix, Télérama, Le Figaro, L'Humanité, and so on). I've added some of it to the page. More exists. See for yourself.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably a week pass at AUTHOR, there is coverage in L'Humanite and Le Figaro for the novel. Rest seems ok, could use better sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This story about her acting career in Le Monde [43] and this, a long NPR-style interview over her novel on public radio in France [44]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the L'Humanite and Le Monde sources, among others. Toughpigs (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Deming

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

Music critic/local musician with single minor acting credit; no significant, in depth coverage from secondary sources as an actor, music critic, or musician; fails WP:GNG. Rift (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are you out there to just save a couple bits? his allmusic reviews are quoted/re-quoted regularly. 96.42.182.14 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For fans of indy, rock, alt, etc. he is a notable reviewer and critic. Joelrashflint (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Journalism, and Michigan.
WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Susan Stark profile (multiple pages) appears to be SIGCOV. No? Cbl62 (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. It's definitely a "local boy makes good" piece which, per WP:GNG, creates the assumption but not a guarantee of notability. Given that it's a minor acting credit (he was billed 36th), and there being a lack of secondary sources about any other aspect of his career, I'd say it's thin. Rift (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see much coverage for him, in newspapers or otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This might be about him, he would be about the same age [45]. Still not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR and WP:NBAND. He might be a triple threat, but as an actor, musician, or writer, he is just not notable. But passing references are not enough. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khadisha Debesette

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this match report, which provides a few sentences of coverage on the subject after scoring a hat-trick, as well as these short pieces, which acknowledge the subject winning minor college awards at the NCAA Division II level. Otherwise it's all passing mentions, whether from her international (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2018, 2019), college (2015, 2016, 2017), or club (2023) careers. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Trinidad and Tobago. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and move to Arco stelae, which seems to have marginally more support here than Arco I, as well as easier sourcing. Discussion about the best title can continue on the article's Talk page. Give me a shout (or tag with G6) if the new Arco I redir needs to be deleted to make way for a move. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Mama stela

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

I cannot find any information on this topic to verify anything in this article. This seems like a very marginal topic that doesn't need its own page. Angryapathy (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After the good work that Joe Roe did with the page, I believe that we can rename this article Arco I and close the discussion. Angryapathy (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing for this stone item, lots for Big Mamas of all sorts found... Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HOAX? Why would an Italian stele have such an odd English name. Who knows. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Arco I. This really is (was) a terrible article: as far as I can tell the "Big Mama" nickname is completely made up, the connection to Ötzi is highly speculative to say the least, and even the title is spelled wrong (it's about a stele, not a stela). But underneath it there is actually a notable topic, which is named in one of the external links as Arco I. Google Scholar and Google Books searches turn up plenty of sources that could be used to expand it. For now I've stubbed it to verifiable info. If kept it should be moved, if not to Arco I then to something like Arco stelae where we could cover the whole group of six. – Joe (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. Llajwa (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a not-yet-created Arco stelae page. I think Arco I alone might not meet the notability criteria. --Broc (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more clarity on whether Arco I is notable in itself or whether the resulting article should be Arco stelae.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arco I itself is notable, I think the references linked above and now cited in the article amply show that. The question is more one of WP:PAGEDECIDE: covering them together in Arco stelae would avoid repeating a lot of contextual information, but we currently only have material on Arco I, so unless someone is volunteering to write about the others I don't see that as a viable outcome right now. In any case, I don't see why that needs to be decided at AfD. – Joe (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 01:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Juergensen

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

A lot of WP:ORIGINAL done here. None of the sources are WP:RELIABLE. TLA (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, Environment, Technology, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Kevin Juergensen, and I've now been contacted by people who want me to pay them money to keep this wikipedia page going, which means it is some sort of scam. Everything on this page is accurate, and many things without sources as per Wikipedia Guidelines are NOT listed on it for that reason. I did not create this page, nor did I pay someone to create this page. I have some prominence in the field of scuba diving and life support, and as such someone created this page ages ago. I would offer to improve the page, but that seems narcissistic, which means maybe you guys will just delete it, which seems odd for a repository of human knowledge. If AfD becomes weaponized, then it seems to me that Wikipedia will shrink significantly as who has the energy to fight that? I'm not going to pay the scammer to try and keep this page going, and I've reported this to the Wikipedia folks via the method they describe in the AfD scam page. Anyway, thank you for listening. 204.197.153.14 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page has been around since 2011. If the person wasn't notable, they could simply have removed the page right from the start. Why nominate this page for deletion now? Looking at the comment, someone emailed him asking for money in return for keeping the page. This makes me wonder if some editors would randomly nominate a page for deletion, hoping to scam the person on the page. Iamsuperingbo (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, we'll edit your article for free. Just ask for help. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of much of any sourcing in RS. This isn't a RS [46] and it's about all I find for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so the guy masquerading as a "Senior Wikipedia Administrator" by the name of "Brendan Conway" has been sending me e-mails 1-2 times a day asking me to send him $1499 (interesting figure) to "keep your Wikipedia page". You folks ought to recognize an organized scam when you see one. Now, this page is "relisted" and the very same guy just sent me another e-mail saying "I'd like to tell you that your page has been relisted for deletion for the second time." Oh wow. What a shocker. Either it's a bot that is watching this page, or it is actually someone who is nominating it for a AfD. In any event, I'm afraid Wikipedia is going to lose all relevance once these types of people realize the scam they can run. I love Wikipedia, but this kind of stuff is bound to ruin it. 204.197.153.14 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're well aware of the scam, and I can promise you my relist was simply the seven day ticker rather than any collaboration with the scammer. You can either contact paid-en-wpwikipedia.org as directed or ignore the emails. The community, not a scammer, will decide whether your article meets the requirements for an article. Star Mississippi 13:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, the scammer is just some opportunist who likely keeps tabs on AfDs for people and organizations. That an article has been around for some time is not a valid reason for keeping. At the end of the day, the sourcing needed to pass WP:GNG just isn't there. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Xi (banker)

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

No WP:SIGCOV. External links are not WP:INDEPENDENT, either. Maybe someone who has a grasp on Mandarin Chinese can speak upon this. TLA (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems like a banker with controversy, which IMO goes beyond BLP1E with some SIGCOV from appointment and dismissal news which are unlikely press releases (with speculation that the dismissal is related to the controversy)
[47] News about the controversy that "PICC Group once required all employees to recite Chairman Luo Xi's quotes, though such activities have been suspended", by Lianhe Zaobao (Newspaper)

[48] News about Luo Xi appointed as Secretary of Party Committee and Chairman at PICC Group by Caixin (reliable per Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide#China). Blocked by paywall, but there is a 5-sentence of intro about their bank career visible.

[49] News report when Xi Luo was dismissed from the Secretary of Party Committee position by The Paper (newspaper): 5-paragraph of SIGCOV about their career

[50] Another news report about the dismissal by Caixin, with speculation that the dismissal is related to the controversy. Unfortunately still blocked by paywall, but there's a 2-paragraph intro about their career visible. --94rain ^Talk 01:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your excellent work finding these Chinese-language sources, 94rain (talk · contribs)! I hope that time and interest permitting, you will participate in more Chinese AfD discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China and Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Article alerts. Chinese topics are very underrepresented on the English Wikipedia, so the more editors doing searches for sources in the area the better. Cunard (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Liu, Jingyuan 刘敬元; Deng, Xiongying 邓雄鹰 (2020-09-08). 人保一把手空缺2个月后迎来新任，60岁太平罗熹接棒，如何掌舵"新中国保险长子"？ [The top leader of the People's Insurance Company of China has been vacant for 2 months and a new one has been appointed. Taiping Group's 60-year-old Luo Xi takes over. How will he be at the helm of the "eldest son of New China Insurance"?]. Securities Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-18. Retrieved 2024-01-18.
  This is the same article as the one found by 94rain (talk · contribs) but is a non-paywalled copy of the article from the source that originally published it. The article notes: "纵观其履历，罗熹在农行任职时间最久，达22年，在工行工作4年，在中国出口信用保险公司工作3年，在华润集团工作将近3年，执掌太平集团2年时间。在任职太平集团一把手期间，罗熹还任太平保险集团（香港）公司、太平保险控股董事长，并兼任太平人寿、太平资产等多个太平子公司董事长。"
  From Google Translate: "Looking at his resume, Luo Xi has worked at the Agricultural Bank of China for the longest time, reaching 22 years. He has worked at ICBC for 4 years, at China Export and Credit Insurance Corporation for 3 years, at China Resources Group for nearly 3 years, and at the helm of Taiping Group for 2 years. While serving as the top leader of Taiping Group, Luo Xi also served as the chairman of Taiping Insurance Group (Hong Kong) Company and Taiping Insurance Holdings, and concurrently served as the chairman of several Taiping subsidiaries such as Taiping Life Insurance and Taiping Assets."
2. The sources found by 94rain (talk · contribs).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Luo Xi (simplified Chinese: 罗熹; traditional Chinese: 羅熹) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per excellent sources found by Cunard. But plus expand. Current version is evil to me. Thanks 1.46.159.106 (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:BLP. There are thousands of VPs at banks across the world, and likewise many with scandals. I don't see how this guy rates as notable. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be updated. The article was written in 2013 when they were a VP, but they then became the Chairman and was later dismissed (An insignificant note: Vice_president#In_financial_services_companies does not apply to banks in China but instead it works in a way similar as what is mentioned in Vice_president#In_other_organizations). It's true that "Not every chairman with scandal can have an article" but I don't see how MILL would apply in this case. I welcome arguments about how the sources do or do not meet ANYBIO or how BLP1E is not addressed by them. 94rain ^Talk 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Xi received a very detailed profile in the Securities Times in September 2020, which is one of the four major securities newspapers in China. This is a very strong source that demonstrates he is notable. His dismissal from the Secretary of Party Committee position owing to a controversy happened 2.5 years later in 2023 and led to more biographical coverage about him. Luo Xi passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gilliland

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

Biography of a musician and broadcaster, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for musicians or broadcasters. The strongest attempt at a notability claim is that he had a single peak #94 on the charts -- but that's not a high enough chart position to confer an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of any WP:GNG-worthy sourcing, and while the song itself is a famous one his version was only a 14-years-later cover, not the definitive fame-making version, and simply having covered a song that was previously made famous by somebody else isn't a notability freebie either.
Other than that, however, this is strictly on the level of "Bill Gilliland is a person who existed", and five of the seven footnotes are primary sources and/or WordPress blogs that aren't support for notability at all -- while The Canadian Encyclopedia just briefly namechecks his existence a single time without being about him in any non-trivial sense, and RPM (which I had to search-in-document to actually find, because the footnote links to the entire issue but fails to name what specific article in the issue was being cited) just features him as the speaker making a corporate announcement about a Gordon Lightfoot compilation album, and thus isn't about Bill Gilliland either.
So we're sitting at zero for GNG-worthy coverage, because only two footnotes here are reliable or GNG-eligible sources but he isn't the subject of either of them, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not enough for me to vote keep yet, but there's lasting, significant coverage in this book Mach61 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the fish were biting in this confirmation [51], rest of Gnewspapers is for various politicians. Nothing about this person found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree b. Mach61 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2030 European Women's Handball Championship

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Event is 6 years away. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. There was an indiscriminate creation of articles about upcoming sports events. Svartner (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Боки ☎ ✎ 17:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2032 European Women's Handball Championship

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Event is 8 years away. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. There was an indiscriminate creation of articles about upcoming sports events. Svartner (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Боки ☎ ✎ 17:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2032 European Men's Handball Championship

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

Way WP:TOOSOON. Event is 8 years away Grahaml35 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. There was an indiscriminate creation of articles about upcoming sports events. Svartner (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Боки ☎ ✎ 17:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2030 European Men's Handball Championship

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

Way WP:TOOSOON. Event is still 6 years away. Dratify can also be applicable. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. There was an indiscriminate creation of articles about upcoming sports events. Svartner (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Боки ☎ ✎ 17:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 01:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remote (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously deleted by discussion, but seems like there's enough changes that it can't be G4'd. However, it doesn't seem like there is a significant change in the topic's notability. I will tag all of the previous discussion's participants below. UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging all previous (non-blocked, non-IP) AFD's participants: @Chris troutman, Husond, Tony Fox, Oaktree b, Martinp, Scope creep, Jacona, DoubleCross, Serial Number 54129, BusterD, Sportsfan 1234, Gusfriend, Iskandar323, Trey Maturin, Nil Einne, Girth Summit, Fakescientist8000, and HighKing: in hopes they can see something better here than I can. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tech crunch articles are more about the company, but it's not a totally RS. Rest is still funding announcements. I still don't see enough sourcing about the company that isn't related to financing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as prior closer. I saw this come through AfC this morning and had some concerns about a brand new editor creating a well-formed article, but only reviewed enough to say not a G4. Will look into the sourcing during the discussion. Star Mississippi 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now that it's been pointed to me, It was clear I made an error mistakes in judging the notability of the topic. Apologies folks.

TheBritinator (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same usual mix of funding and valuation annoucements typical of a startup. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH. Its not changed much from the previous version as far I can see. More of the same thing has been added if anything. We can go through the first two blocks of references in detail if necessary, but to summarise, Ref 1, 6, 7,8,9,10, 11 are trivial funding annoucements. Ref 2 is non-rs. Ref 3,5 are PR, Ref 4, 9, 12 is valuation. The rest are PR. They all fails WP:SIRS in one way or another. scope_creep^Talk 17:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails NCORP and GNG. All the cites are embarrassing churnalism. I cannot understand why this company sent an employee to attempt this task on Wikipedia after a former admin could not manage it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (with thanks to UtherSRG for the ping, above). Just as in the 1st AFD, I think the Techcrunch source is a good one, and there were and therefore still are enough others that are reliable (independent) and meaningful enough to be OK, though I haven't re-looked in the current excessive list of references to locate them. I also think that we as a community have our "need to stop spam" filters set so high we do a crappy job covering companies, rejecting articles where similarly notable sports figures, TV shows, etc. sail through unchallenged. All this leads me to Keep. And yet: this is so clearly written with a PR perspective, so focused on unencyclopedic funding details (and yet over-referenced) that I don't see how we're going to get a reasonable article to arise from this and who will maintain it. And so while I wrote "Clear keep" on the 1st AFD, I'm now watered down to a "Weak keep" only. Martinp (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for notable sports figures, TV shows, etc, are not the same as the standards set for companies which uses GNG/WP:NCORP. The TechCrunch articles all fail WP:ORGIND as they rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our standards describe our practice, and I agree with you they seem to have developed to be different for companies than in other areas. So many people, like you, claim an article in a mainstream specialized publication about a company that is a secondary source primarily based on information by the company and its employees as primary sources, is insufficiently independent. Yet a profile of a notable figure that would be equally based on an interview with the figure, and information provided by that figure's collaborators, would likely be deemed sufficiently independent because of the editorial effort put in by the author -- an effort likely very similar to that of the author of the article about a company. I believe this is an inconsistency. The biases underpinning it are indicated by the pejorative language that tends to come up in discussions, e.g. "churnalism", "regurgitate", "PR crap", "marketing spam" (I'm not casting aspersions at anyone specifically here, just what the tone of these discussions ends up being in general). I speak up about when I feel strongly we're getting it wrong in a specific case, but I'm not going to argue this one, where it does seem we ultimately have very little to go on about this company than it own marketing collateral and funding information Martinp (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that we're clear, yes, that is correct. Our guidelines have particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company and if it is an "article in in a mainstream specialized publication about a company that is a secondary source primarily based on information by the company and its employees as primary sources, is insufficiently independent.". That's the mechanism by which we ensure that companies are truly notable and not just good at marketing. If they're notable, somebody, somewhere, will take the time to write something in-depth and original about them. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi everyone! I'm not sure how best to reply to all the comments but I really want to say thank you to everyone for the feedback and for spending the time and energy to look through the article and its sources. I got really great help from the Article Wizard, the other available resources on Wiki, and referred to the Wiki pages and sources of Deel (company) and Gusto (company) as guides on how best to cite and write this article as neutrally as possible. If there's anything else I could edit to help make a stronger case to keep the article, please let me know. Ad Astra Per Asperaaa (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Astra Per Asperaaa, the best thing you can do is point us to independent, reliable sources. Read WP:SIRS first, it will help you understand what would be most helpful. — Jacona (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly implore you to point to reliable secondary sources that prove the notability of the subject. It would be a shame for the article so fail, but it will do if it must. TheBritinator (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you and @Jacona for the advice! I'm grateful. When I was writing this, I referred to that page, to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and some other pages too. Given it's my first time writing a Wiki article, I've also been referring to Deel (company) and Gusto (company) as guides, since they're in similar industries.

What I noticed was that there are parallels in the news articles and sources cited, where quite a number of the sources report on valuations and fundraising for these two companies, since that's the main issue of this article from the feedback so far. I also notice that both those pages have press releases and their respective company websites as sources.

I'll keep looking and adding more notable and legit sources because I think that's crucial to this whole process, especially given my position. Given my inexperience, and genuinely so, I would appreciate it if there's anyone that can help me understand how this article can be on equal standing with Deel (company) and Gusto (company). Ad Astra Per Asperaaa (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. They all rely on announcements or other regurgitated company information, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may be the odd man out here, but based on multiple coverage in well known publications such as Techcrunch, VentureBeat, Business Insider, Reuters, etc they meet WP:NCORP. Although some of the articles sound like announcements, they go in detail about the company's services and operations. Royal88888 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "coverage in well known publications" is not one of the criteria for establishing notability. Nonetheless, you say they meet NCORP. Please point to any specific paragraph in any of those sources (or any other sources you can find) which you believe contains in-depth Independent Content. Note "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. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company name makes searching for significant coverage challenging. Of the presented sources, I don't see one of them which directly details anything about the business. Just fund-raising and principals. It's clear there's some capital behind the project, but the corporation hasn't garnered any descriptive press about itself, even in routine business news. I don't see any basis for a keep outcome here. There's no claim of notability whatsoever. BusterD (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paracelsus-Bad (Berlin U-Bahn)

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

Does not appear to be sufficient sources to show why this u-bahn station meets the notability criteria for inclusion. I've looked at the page on dewiki but I'm not seeing any extra sources we can consider here JMWt (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Germany. JMWt (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Station on a major network in a major city, all of whose stations have articles. Not sure why this particular station has been singled out for deletion. There are likely to be plenty of sources available. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to consider any sources you can offer here. There is no "singling out" any more than there is in starting an AfD discussion on any other page. JMWt (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes there is, considering all the other stations on the network have articles as well. Why have you chosen this one to nominate for deletion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the nomination. JMWt (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination statement does not answer Necrothesp's question. Why have you chosen to nominate this station and not any others? When an article is part of a tightly-defined set (almost all articles about rapid transit stations are) then it rarely makes sense to consider the article in isolation to others in the set. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a relevant question to ask a nom and I'm under no obligation to answer it. Rapid transport system stations do not have implied notability on en.wiki, as shown by various AfD discussions where similar station pages in other countries have been deleted. If you have sources that show this station is notable, please supply them. JMWt (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a relevant question and it has nothing to do with implied notability. Furthermore, if you don't want to answer a question (for any reason) say you do not want to answer it rather than pointing to a comment that doesn't answer it with a comment implying that it does. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a relevant question. It's an attempt to understand why this single station on an extensive system has been nominated and no other. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. There is definitely no reason to remove the verifiable information about this station from the encyclopaedia completely. Yes, it could do with more sources, but it's inconceivable to me that they don't exist even if they aren't cited yet. Has the nominator looked anywhere other than the German Wikipedia article? Obviously the most prominent results on Google in English are going to be those useful for those travelling to/from the station, because that's what most people are searching for, but take the time to exclude them and look for histories, etc in German. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources to consider: Berliner Morgenpost, in German, paywalled [52] and [53]. Die Dorfzeitung:[54]. T-online [55] Berliner Kurier[56]. Rupples (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Not all the stations on the U8 (Berlin U-Bahn) line have separate articles. Those associated with S-Bahn or main rail lines feature within a combined rail station article. (Some of them seem rather lost within the longer article.) It makes sense to keep the station set for the line intact and have at least a redirect somewhere. All the U8 stations might be better presented in a "List of U8 stations" article, but that would need a separate discussion. Rupples (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Rupple's sources. I also agree with Necro and Thryduulf it makes no sense to delete one and only one article in a tight set, and the nom refuses to provide any explanation why even when asked. Jumpytoo Talk 04:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. ~ GB fan 15:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobiles known for negative reception

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

Article is a major point-of-view fork. People can have a negative opinion about every car in existence in one way or another and this article have no chance to be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that this list was nominated for deletion at AfD twice before, in 2015 and in 2018. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to address two main reasons why this article has been kept.

List of films considered the worst, so this article should also be kept – No, this is not true. Another similar article being kept does not mean that this article should be kept. Unlike List of films considered the worst, this article does not definitively define notability or criteria for inclusion. For example, should the Cybertruck controversial and potential safety hazard make it suitable for inclusion here? Or if there are only precisely three reliable sources criticizing an old car model, should it be removed from this page? Yes or no, because of why? I do understand that this criteria for inclusion might allow a bit fuzziness here, but in this case I feel that it is too subjective and prone to editor's bias, which leads to...
List is sourced to respectable news and broadcasting media – this is very fuzzy and prone to editors' bias. For example, the VinFast VF 8. If Vietnamese news sources praise the car for being ABC and XYZ, while Western sources all criticize the car in all other respect, should it stay or be removed from the article? Again, if people from the Anglosphere universally criticize the car while people from other parts of the world praise the car, either the omission or the addition of the entry would imply geographical bias. I don't want to say that we should encourage false balance here (especially because I'm biased about the VF 8 myself because of my nationality), but IMO this is something that we have to consider especially for Chinese and Russian cars listed.

And here are some more potential issues about the article, some can be fixed, some are inherent, sorted from most urgent:

Article is cited to a lot of blogs and websites that are not authoritative and representative of the automobile world. This means that their criticisms cannot be taken as a reliable review of automobile experts' consensus.
Excessive amount of quotations, no summary of the criticisms. This is a potential copyright violation issue.
List's title imply that all cars that have at least some form of negative reception should be included in this list.

– CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to turn this to a derisive debate. On a wider note, if this article is kept for the third time, then I strongly recommend establishing a consistent criteria for articles within Category:Lists of worsts to avoid further debates about these kind of articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 EMagin. Star Mississippi 18:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z800 3DVisor

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

I couldn't find sources to prove WP:N. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or redirect to eMagin but it currently hasn't been considered notable enough for a mention in that article. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article had poor sourcing. Nominator should have done a better research. I have added 7 new sources including CNET and PC MAG.Bikerose (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- CNET: Situational (per WP:RSP)
- PCMAG: Reliable (per WP:VG/S)
- New Atlas: (Presumed) reliable (per RSN archive 375)
- Don’t see anything about SimHQ, oled.com. The rest are probably primary sources.
Based on the sources @Bikerose gave, I’d lean Weak Keep. However, CNET can be replaced with a better source. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to eMagin; the article on the company is very short, and this is the only product by the company for which we have an article; there is no need for separate pages. BD2412 T 01:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Crew

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

Barely referenced article and the references appear to all be wikis, facebook pages, or the band's own website. No reliable secondary sources to illustrate they meet WP:BAND. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Encyclopedia Mettalum used as sourcing is not a RS. I can't find mentions of this group online in RS (or in much of anything really. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no evidence of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark These Words as to why no AtD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More references added. Xray321 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't reliable sources. I had to remove some for being WP:USERGENERATED, WP:DISCOGS and WP:IMDB. The remaining appear to be random blogs that simply repeat press releases. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is independent coverage available online including news and reviews with significant coverage - see for example:

This is specialist music genre, and these are specialist online magazines. Some of these sources do appear fairly reliable - but input from editors with greater knowledge of the sources could be beneficial. ResonantDis_tortion 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources provided above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ResonantDistortion: When posting links, please omit any that are clearly promotional, particularly when they use the same press release.
- Prog Rock Journal, Ghost Cult Mag, Metal Heads Forever Magazine, RAMzine: Mostly PR copy[57]
- Velvet Thunder: Possibly neutral and independent, but the website has no editor credits, code of conduct information, only has a single email POC, and PR copy is posted under the "News" category without being labelled as such.
- Radio Tangra: Author appears to be Bulgarian musician Stefan "Stiff" Yordanov, who was in turn of the millennium bands Insmouth and Redrum. Expert, and possibly neutral/independent, but the site has only an advertising POC, and no editorial policy or code of conduct.
- Devolution Magazine: The reviewer (Jo Wright) appears to have performed 100+ reviews for the magazine, also has a longer interview article with the band. Website has editor listed, but not an editorial policy or code of conduct. "Work With Us" section states "We are always on the look out for brands looking to advertise, contributors, stockists and affiliates/partners to work with on exciting opportunities" - unclear as to what disclosure is provided.
- rockfreaks.net: Looks reliable[58]. AZ is former reviewer Bulgarian Alexander Zafirov - large number of reviews[59]
- metal.de: Looks reliable. Reviewer is a regular.[60][61]
There's at least a marginal level of coverage in English Language sources, this is a band that has survived for 20 years under two names, and it is all but certain that there'd be more coverage in Bulgaria and probably elsewhere given their touring[62] (the rollingstone.bg article hasn't been archived, and it's tricky to tell what sources in the bg-wiki article are reliable). But the current article quality is terrible, and appears to have had significant connected contributions . I'm somewhere between a Weak Keep if someone cleans it up properly, and a Draftify/WP:TNT delete if not (yes, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP given consideration). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Interactive Media Manager

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

I couldn't find sources to prove WP:N. No good WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this software, hits are all about cloud stuff now. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following sources for IMM: [63][64]book [65][66][67][68][69][70][71] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Oaktree. Amuckabak (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SharePoint as an ATD. Fails NPRODUCT. Regarding the sources provided above: 1 and 2 are press release, book is from a self-publishing press (CreateSpace), 3 is ROUTINE coverage of the product shutting down, 4 is routine coverage in a trade publication, 5, 7, and 8 are the same source, and is a technical manual about how the software implements Web Ontology Language, 6 is a brief mention, and 9 is also a brief mention. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shibakali Mondal

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

I haven't seen a single reliable citation on this subject to verify notability. Also article appears to be highly unsourced. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and West Bengal. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Powell (author)

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

I couldn't find sources to prove WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. No good WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while there are no sources on the author, several of his books might be notable. There are a bunch of reviews on Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. One of them, The Whistling Toilets, won a prize from the American Library Association. As it's written, the page does not show the notability of the author, but it can be expanded to include information on his books. --Broc (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Washington. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ : Winning the Library Association prize denotes notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He did not win "the Library Association prize", one book's recording was named to its "Selected Audiobooks for Young Adults", which appears to have 30 titles per year and is not enough for WP:NAUTHOR. There needs to be significant coverage or sources on the individual for an article. Reywas92^Talk 19:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have amended my !vote above, after the prior comment explained the nomination. I don't really see much coverage for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been trying to figure out why exactly I got a notice for this AFD, and it turns out I created the article, which makes sense - except I have no idea what I was thinking when I put this out there (probably read something by the author while still in collage). Changing times and standards I guess. At any rate, if ya’ll wanna delete it go ahead. 2600:1011:B13D:12B7:DC8:577A:7FF5:4615 (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Flood

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or redirect to Pádraig Harrington#Personal life as he has a one-sentence mention in that article, but I think a merge would give overdue prominence in Harrington's article. Boleyn (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to have any notability outside of working for Pádraig Harrington. Notability is not attained only through working with someone notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. No indication of notability. Nigej (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he cannot inherit any notability for Pádraig Harrington. ww2censor (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above, no notability in own right; crystal clear. A brief mention in Harrington's article, especially given the family link, is enough. SeoR (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have WP:GNG coverage. Let'srun (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yemisi Ransome-Kuti

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

Does not meet with Wikipedia notability guidelines for biographies Semmy1960 (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify for improvement. I see press coverage stretching back years in a Google news search and a Google book search, enough to suggest a strong GNG pass. Our current article is not well written but deletion is not cleanup and the subject seems notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific source assessment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BEFORE suggests that this passes GNG, also, indeed, AfD isn't for articles that just need cleanup. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Sandercock

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

Opening AfD as it was already previously PRODded. Subject does not fulfill notability requirements, neither per WP:NAUTHOR, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:SINGER. Broc (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Bands and musicians, Politicians, and England. Broc (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero hits for the person. Running for an election isn't notable, not sure being the head of the geography department at a boys school is notable enough either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not satisfy WP:NPROF. Being the head of a school is nowhere near that mark. Qflib (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White market

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

Searching indicates that this isn't a term. Searching gets mountains of false hits, and even searching in GScholar most hits are either completely spurious or are for the book White Market Drugs, which is about drug industry abuses, not economics. One reference from the Von Mises Institute isn't enough. Also, the article, when stripped of its explanation of other "off-white" markets, it's just a definition. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The term in this case, is mentioned as "babies in the white market" in the article's only reference source "Stork Markets: An Analysis of Baby-selling, The journal of libertarian studies". — Maile (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDICT. --Broc (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons others have given. Llajwa (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NotAGenious (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camping and Caravanning Club

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

None of the four sources pass: two are from the subject's own website, one doesn't mention the subject, and one mentions it in passing. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Organizations, Travel and tourism, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An extremely large and significant organisation in the UK. Plenty of sources available. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I have some edits to make to this page to improve the quality and tighten up the references. Can I make these? I really don't want the page to be deleted. Thank you. Adrobson (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you can. Please do. Particularly, please add information from WP:SIRS sources to demonstrate the topic's notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is.. please do not add unsourced informaiton. Please add references to assertions already in the article. Please add new information only with references to support those assertions. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... your username used to be "The Camping and Caravanning Club"? No, you should very much not be editing this article. you should make edit requests on the talk page with {{edit COI}} as you most certainly have an conflict of interest. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with @Necrothesp. This is a large and historic organisation in the UK. References in the article may be poor but AfD is not cleanup. A quick google on The Guardian alone ([72]) indicates a plethora of references. ResonantDis_tortion 17:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable organisation with significant coverage GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Corruption in Azerbaijan as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 02:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Monitoring Service (Azerbaijan)

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

This is an Azerbaijani state initiative from 2009 to make the government appear less corrupt. There are no independent reliable sources in the article. Thenightaway (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Corruption in Azerbaijan: no independent notability. Owen× ☎ 21:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally we have found state entities like this to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see at least two more editors' comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards keep, but only if purely Azerbaijan-language sources are allowed, because that's all that's out there. The BBC's Azerbaijan chapter only ever mentions them in articles written in Azerbaijani, a couple times a year:[73]. Official media and a site called 'Concrete'[konkret.az] tend to just release or repeat official statements. Wizmut (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what language sources are in. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NORG. All sources fails WP:IS. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS. Azerbaijan government sources are not independent reliable sources for the subject. No objection to a consensus redirect to Corruption in Azerbaijan. // Timothy :: talk 05:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article looks like a copy and paste, possibly a translation off the official website. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 between keeping the article and merging it into Theosophy. After sources were presented and it was demonstrated that secondary coverage exists, editors appear to be split between keeping (and possibly renaming) and merging, both of which have some plausible backing in policies and guidelines. Further discussion on a merger can be handled in a standard merge proposal, while further discussion on a move can be handled in a standard requested move discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theosophy in Scandinavia

AfDs for this article:

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

Overly promotional with only primary sources. No independent reliable secondary sources cover this topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Religion, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Owen× ☎ 14:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources about this topic seem to exist. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick, cursory search found a number of sources: twenty-minute academic presentation on theosophy in Sweden, there's this article on the founding of Teosofiska Samfundet i Skandinavien (the Theosophy Association of Scandinavia), focused on the role (or lack thereof) of Viktor Rydberg, here's another academic article on theosophy in Sweden in the 1890s, and Western Esotericism in Scandinavia (ed. Henrik Bogdan and Olav Hammer), an academic title, seems to have eight (or six, depending on your definition of Scandinavia) relevant chapters, four (or three) focused on theosophy in the relevant countries. And so on. Whatever the issues are, I don't think it's that no reliable secondary sources exist. (I know nothing about theosophy, though.) /Julle (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources found by Julle, particularly Western Esotericism in Scandinavia, demonstrating that the topic has been covered in independent reliable secondary sources. Jfire (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are no other articles covering Theosophy in a particular geographic area (e.g. Theosophy in North America). Although there are good sources covering Theosophy in Scandinavia, I think that their content would fit better on the Theosophy article itself, perhaps in a section discussing the movement's geographic differences. Most of the existing content has a bit of a promotional tone which would not have a home on the Theosophy page, but if the article were expanded with the mentioned sources, I think that their content would fit best there. Uffda608 (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and rename (and keep, I suppose). Having thought about this, I think both the article and the sources show there's enough content for separate articles, and I don't see how the article on theosophy in general would benefit from a long section on Denmark, specifically. But while there's an a good list of sources for theosophy which does take place in Scandinavia, they tend to focus on the individual countries. Very little here is actually on theosophy in Scandinavia – rather, we have sources on the individual subsets of Scandinavia. This means that we could build in article based on them, properly covering the topic – but why, if that's not how our sources treat it? I think it makes more sense to have articles on theosophy in Sweden, theosophy in Denmark and so on, based on how the sources I've located deal with the subject. So since this mainly deals with Denmark, I suggest we let it focus on that part and move it to Theosophy in Denmark instead. /Julle (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Uffda608 too.

SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and rename (in keeping with the above case presented by Julle). Nathantx (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Uffda608. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Haze'evot. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yifat Balassiano

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

Non-notable standalone band member. Refs are passing mentions, 404's and social media. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the non-notability claim. Balassiano is the lead singer and songwriter of the most popular female rock group in Israel today. Furthermore, she has recently launched her solo career with a debut solo album to her name. --Omer Toledano (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omert33:She has launched a solo career. Were you paid to create the article per chance? scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Pertaining your question, no I did not get paid. I've simply been following her career and see her as a person of interest. Why all this aggressive scrutiny? --Omer Toledano (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references as they stand:

Ref 1 [74] 404. Non-rs
Ref 2 [75] Details The Wolves. An analaysis of one of there songs. It is a passing mention.
Ref 3 [76] "The Wolves are the girl gang we all want". Is is another passing mention in the context of the band.
Ref 4 [77] This is an event listing. It is non-RS.
Ref 5 [78] Another 404
Ref 6 Facebook link. Non-RS

That is the first two ref blocks. The other ref block is more of the same. These are not real sources, a mix of 404, social media links and passing mentions for a WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Haze'evot. Yawn! There is a heated notability discussion above, by references instead of sources, and this discussion is entirely beside the point because the article should be merged regardless of notability. Yifat Balassiano is a CURRENT member of Haze'vot. This band is undisputedly notable and has a too short article. Balassiano also did some solo recordings and obviously was born, went to school, and the like. All that, minus every track of her solo albums, can be included in Haze'evot without creating a situation of WP:UNDUE and without creating the need to rehash the entire Haze'evot history once again. Did I just say once again? Make that TWICE again because exactly the same problems at the article of yet another band member, Talia Ishai. Merge them all. Both are totally unjustified WP:SPINOFFs, creating a user experience from hell, where the user needs to chase after bits and pieces of information, while stuff is unnecessarily repeated. This is not respectful. As if our users can't hold onto information or be exposed to more information at once. gidonb (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Solo album constitutes the "demonstration of individual notability". --Omer Toledano (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having a solo album doesn't constitute notability in this instance, particularly since the coverage proves the album has not been successful, and that is further reinforced by the complete lack of social media interest. There is nothing there. 69 subscribers on youtube. Nothing. This is the editor who moved the article from Afc without review. scope_creep^Talk 09:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to album review. --Omer Toledano (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The supposed album review is to a niche radio site that is not WP:RS nor independent. It is PR. This is a WP:BLP. Where is the WP:THREE sources that prove the person is notable per established best practice per consensus. Not passing mentions or event listings or interviews. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* keep--היידן (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a WP:SPA scope_creep^Talk 14:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far no evidence has presented that this person is notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see notability for this person. Making an album these days is as simple as uploading songs to the streaming platform of your choice, not really implying notability. Ok if it gets redirected to the band. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Further to my conclusions in this debate, I have nominated Talia Ishai for merger into Haze'evot. Anyone who found interest in this discussion may find interest in that other discussion as well. gidonb (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Jacona (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about redirecting as an ATD and compromise. This is what we did with Talia Ishai. Any objections to the same solution? gidonb (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 01:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Myung-jin

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

No indication of notability outside of team setting toobigtokale (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Disability, Olympics, and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dele}} tion sorting/South Korea|South Korea]]. toobigtokale (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid deletion rationale. Geschichte (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI Geschichte lack of evidence of notability is a perfectly valid deletion rationale. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not, because nominators are obliged to both explain why they believe the notability is lacking, state which guidelines the subject fail, and preferably show that they have done a WP:BEFORE, in order to be taken seriously. Geschichte (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick search when I first nominated but it was too quick; this athlete has some mild coverage (quoted in a few newspapers with a short blurb about who he is, can't find full articles just about him). On a side note, please watch the tone. Some of your responses have read a little condescending to me. toobigtokale (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject is not notable separately from the team. A redirect to the team article may, or may not, be useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Subject passes WP:NOLYMPICS as a Paralympic medalist. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No GNG coverage has been found so far, so the subject does not meet NSPORT.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: 2008 World Wheelchair Curling Championship links to (brief, minimally documented) articles on every contender from every country. It does not, seemingly, link to pages for the individual national teams. Is the proposal to delete every one of these articles? The others are very similar to this one in notability. Llajwa (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd have to investigate each athlete by searching for news coverage; information on the article alone is not sufficient.

For this article (Kim Myung-jin), here are the Korean sources I can find with non-trivial coverage: [79][80]

That's it. He could have possibly been covered on TV, but this is all I can find in written form with a reasonable amount of effort. toobigtokale (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Charles Oronsaye and draftify Africana Couture. Clear consensus not to retain either in mainspace, and significant enough opposition to delete Charles Oronsaye outright. Daniel (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Oronsaye

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

This could have gone back to draft space or been redirected to the company, but looking at that article, I'm not sure they meet N:ORG and have bundled it here. The sources for both Oronsaye and Africana Couture are churnalism and pay to play sources that are not independent of what he or the company says. I see no evidence of N:ORG or biographic notability. Probably also some UPE in play here as well.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Companies, Fashion, and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 16:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Star Mississippi for your feedback and for taking the time to review the article. I appreciate your concerns regarding the notability and sources for Oronsaye and Africana Couture. I understand the importance of maintaining high standards on Wikipedia.

To address your points, I will carefully reevaluate the sources used in the article. However I’d like to mention that in Nigeria those are some of the most credible independent publications, and ensure that they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

If, after the review, there are still concerns about notability or the reliability of sources, I am open to discussing specific improvements or additions that would help strengthen the article. Alternatively, if redirecting to draft space is deemed more appropriate, I am willing to explore that option as well.

Your insights are valuable, and I am committed to working collaboratively to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's standards. Please feel free to provide specific suggestions or concerns, and I will do my best to address them in constructively. WizzWriter (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat can we please collaborate on this? WizzWriter (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing your ping so @Bearcat receives it. Star Mississippi 16:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: can we please collaborate on this? WizzWriter (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth do you imagine that I could possibly bring to any kind of "collaboration" on a person who has absolutely nothing to do with any of my known areas of expertise? Like, what's he got to do with Canadian film, television, music or literature? Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I thought you’d be able to guide me through this situation given that you’re an experienced editor and have previously edited the Africana page in the past. I’ll look for a Nigerian editor I can collaborate with on this. WizzWriter (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for the props, but as a rule if you're looking for help in salvaging an article you're always better off looking for people with some established expertise in the relevant subject areas — Nigerians, for example, are a lot more likely to have access to databases of archived Nigerian media coverage that might help improve a Nigeria-related article's sourcing, whereas I have nothing of the sort. For a Canadian topic, I'd be a good guy to approach, because I have the resources to find deep Canadian media coverage all the way back to the 1800s — but for a Nigerian topic, I'd be strictly at the mercy of Google, and have no special ability to find anything you didn't already find on Google. And just for the record, the only thing I ever actually did to the Africana Couture article was remove a redlinked category — but I didn't get there from "expertise in African fashion", I got there from "cleaning up redlinked categories". Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, thank you for breaking this down for me. WizzWriter (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Afí-afeti:, I don’t want to be a bother but I’ve seen your edits in a lot of Nigerian Wikipedia pages. Would you mind collaborating with me on this? WizzWriter (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi could we also explore the possibility of moving both the articles on Charles and Africana Couture to the draftspace where I can work with other African editors collaboratively to make it better and meet all Wikipedia guidelines? WizzWriter (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely can. That's why we encourage draft space. It allows editors time to work on the articles with less risk of deletion. Star Mississippi 03:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi. Thanks for considering that. I’ll make sure to take note for the future articles I’ll write. Would it be okay for me to proceed and move the articles to the draftspace or is it more appropriate for you to do it? WizzWriter (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Charles Oronsaye and Draftify Africana Couture: The former utterly fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, while the latter might pass GNG if properly re-written. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With the most recent !vote, draftify is contested, so now a clear consensus needs to form for it to be closed that way. Relisting to generate a more solid consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Africana Couture: Doesn't seem to be notable outside of the company, as coverage is solely about the company when it mentions him. Refs are flimsy. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles, utter churnalism. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. None of the references are sufficient to meet our notabilty guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardo Siddik

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

Non-notable footballer, never played for first team at Crystal Palace, or as a senior international. I have previously moved back to draft space, but this should go through a proper deletion discussion. Spike 'em (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Spike 'em (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Player would not pass the previous NFOOTY and rest of coverage is pretty routine contract announcements / minor match coverage. Spike 'em (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Due to the article being moved from draftspace mutiple times without the proper submission process. Svartner (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forgot Darlington was no longer a league team, I agree with the assessment from the nominator. If it is recreated maybe a SALT is in order. Govvy (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is against retention, and there's a good case made for why merger won't solve the issues raised here. FUrther, there isn't a clear consensus on a target even if merger were an option. No objection to a redirect being created as a matter of editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 02:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli humanitarian aid to Gaza

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

This article is in breach of WP:NPOV and is perhaps one of the most extreme examples of WP:BIAS I've encountered in over 15 years of editing (including editing in areas related to The Troubles in Northern Ireland!) It attempts to paint one side in the conflict as donors of humanitarian aid, and the recipients as probable terrorists and criminals. No attempt at WP:BALANCE has been made.

Examples:

Mention of 1,400 Israelis massacred; absolutely no mention of the 29,000 (at time of writing) Palestinian civilians massacred.
Uncritical presentation of statistics. Since the start of the war "9066 trucks of supplies entered Gaza" sounds impressive. But it's only 85 trucks a day, for an area with a population of >590,000. One truck per 6,900 people!
No mention of who was actually supplying the aid, the implication it's Israel. It isn't, in the vast majority of cases, it's aid organisations.
Absolutely no mention of the fact that much of Gaza, including hospitals and clinics, has been left without fuel, food and water, all widely covered in Western media.
The article starts in 2005, but does not mention the blockade of Gaza, the prohibition on importing goods such as shampoo, paper, chocolate, etc, that was ongoing until at least 2010.

In short, the article is incredibly one-sided and beyond saving in it's current form. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article touches on an extremely important topic that has not yet been presented in the English Wikipedia. I don't see how the arguments they put forward for deletion are relevant. Yes, the article is in its infancy and materials are missing here. The right way to solve this is as always in Wikipedia - to expand the article, bring additional positions and opinions, and promote the article as a community.

Regarding the claims by Bastun:

The 1400 dead were mentioned in a certain context and not in the context of the statistics on the war.
The entry of the trucks began long after the start of the war, therefore your statistics are incorrect. In addition - these days Israel is helping a nation that is currently holding 133 hostages. There are Israelis who claim that 85 trucks a day without receiving compensation is a violation of the Israeli hostages.
Bastun right, it's worth adding
I'm not sure how relevant this is to this particular article.
I can add, I don't see this as a figure that affects the desire to delete the article.

Eladkarmel (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin that Eladkarmel is the page creator. Jebiguess (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator is certainly allowed to have and express an opinion in AFDs. It's even encouraged to leave them notices about AfDs so these opinions are built into practice and policy! gidonb (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I was thinking of something else. Jebiguess (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. A pretty disreputable combo of POV and proseline. Resolving the glaring imbalance issues here would undoubtedly require more effort than was put into the slapdash medley of one-sided content that currently exists. As Bastun also notes, most of the stuff headed into Gaza either from Israel or elsewhere is not "Israeli", so not even the title works. Humanitarian aid in Gaza could certainly be a viable topic, but this is not that; this appears to be some sort of attempt to gloss Israel as a benevolent provider of aid (ironically at a time when it is anything but, and is in fact a prevaricator of aid). A time-wasting POV creation to which WP:TNT and a stern trouting very much applies. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a feel-good exercise for Israel, lacking NPOV. I suppose it could be rewritten, but we'd have to TNT, likely not worth the effort. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mishmash of sourcing attempting to gloss over the war and make it seem like Israel's role in the war is solely as a benevolent provider of aid to Palestinians instead of an active combatant that has directly and indirectly killed 29,000 people. Israel-Palestine topics are contentious, but this is a perfect example of a biased interpretation of random facts in the name of Israeli propaganda. Jebiguess (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, refrain from claiming that actions here are "in the name of Israeli propaganda", Arbcom's I-P measures apply here. JM (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or TNT with new title. My goodness, this article couldn't be a greater NPOV violation if it was written by the Israeli Department of Misinformation. Ordinary trade in "peaceful" times is presented as humanitarian aid, and the tiny trickle allowed in due to international pressure during the current war, leaving thousands hungry, is presented as Israeli largesse. As far as I'm aware, none of this "aid" is paid for by Israel so calling it "Israeli aid" is not only non-neutral but objectively false. Zero^talk 00:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV nonsense. Even a cursory glance at sources is demonstrative of Israel obstructing humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed non-EC comment. JM (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Eladkarmel You could probably move the 2006 bird flu information to Foreign relations of Israel, the work permit info to Palestinian workers in Israel, Israeli permit regime in the Gaza Strip, Israeli permit regime in the West Bank, Economy of Gaza City, or Economy of the State of Palestine and the “2023-2024 Hamas-Israel war” section to Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)#Humanitarian aid. You could also possibly create an article about how exactly Hamas uses the humanitarian aid money from Qatar although that may be challenging because only Hamas knows how they used the money. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Economy of Gaza City (which really has the scope of Economy of the Gaza Strip. I will nominate that for name change alongside.) Aid is a major source of income for the Gaza Strip and isn't sufficiently covered in the target. Can be cleaned up in the target. As noted, that article isn't perfect either yet can use much of this content. gidonb (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International aid to Palestinians. Without doubt, allowing aid from other countries to enter Gaza cannot be seen as "Israeli humanitarian aid to Gaza." I think International aid to Palestinians is a better target than merging to Economy of the Gaza Strip, but I can live with that as a second option. Marokwitz (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I have no objection to this option. Just the article on the Gaza Strip is in my eyes the best option. I would prefer a merger into International aid to Palestinians over a keep or a delete. gidonb (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete. Specifically opposed to merging into another article for the following reasons:

Assisting in transferring donations is not aid, after all, Israel controls the banking system.
Donations from international organizations is not aid from Israel.
The 'transfer' (as described in the lead) of products, admission of patients into hospitals, and employing people is not aid. The notion that 'transfer' of products is aid is particularly glaring, as Israel requires that it clear all imports. For much of the period discussed here, no imports were allowed through Rafah crossing, the only crossing not entirely controlled by Israel.
The metrics reported here are not given context. During much of the period discussed in this article, exports and imports were severely restricted. As noted by other editors, the effort required to fix this far outweighs the information added here. "daily influx of 4,000 tons of gravel, 3,000 tons of cement, and 400 tons of steel bars" is mentioned, but how much was needed to facilitate reconstruction in accordance with the plan (I believe during this period the import of construction material was far below what had been planned)? And anyway, this is about how much Gaza *received*, not about how much was given by Israel. "Approximately 92% of medical aid requests by Gazan civilians from Israel were granted" checking the report this is actually just for the month of December (incorrectly sourced) and out of a total of around 1000 applications, no context is given on the criteria or why there aren't more applications despite the obvious need.
A lot of the statements are very vague, for example "Gas for domestic use was supplied according to Palestinian demand" and "Shipments of food and supplies from Israel to Gaza were carried out six days a week during that time period"
Obviously, permitting imports is not aid, but this article suggests that it is (at the very least a breach of SYNTH).
UNDUE weight on actions of palestinian individuals and groups, for example: "However, Western intelligence revealed that Hamas diverted funds for their own use, despite the intended purpose of aiding Gazan civilians". This could be informative but no details or contextualization is given.
The discussion on the current war is mostly UNDUE and glaringly a breach of NPOV and BIAS, with no attempt at BALANCE. The points above also apply to this section (eg aid from other organizations is not aid from Israel).

Overall, a very low quality article requiring much more work to fix or merge than is worth given the quantity of valuable information. I agree an explanation of Israeli aid to Gaza could be relevant if not already somewhere on wikipedia, but more likely as a subsection in another article, and it should be presented in a contextualized and informative way rather than as a SYNTHed collection of snippets from the internet. DMH43 (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article does not mention that Israel has been imposing a blockade of the Gaza Strip for a long time. And assisting and allowing in transferring a small selected portion of the total international donations is not Israeli aid to Gaza. Israel bars most of the international humanitarian aid to Gaza, e.g. Israel regularly bars Iranian humanitarian aid for Gaza.Crampcomes (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eladkarmel. JM (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless can be entirely rewritten, wholly biased. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs in Norwich

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

Simply a personal/random list or directory of mostly non-notable pubs. The inclusion criteria is not given and is not obvious. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and attracts clutter (people may add their own favourite pub, or start their own local directory). Mostly unsourced. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable local businesses. Notable pubs, such as Fat Cat, Norwich and Adam and Eve, Norwich, will have their own articles and may be included on List of pubs in the United Kingdom. SilkTork (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's easy to find sources stating that Norwich is notable for once having had (allegedly) a pub for every day of the year (and a church for every Sunday). This fact is already in the article about Norwich. Otherwise, the current list of pubs is arbitrary (for both Norwich and pubs: this is the only pub-fact that potentially makes Norwich a special case, and there's nothing special about pubs compared to restaurants, takeaways or nightclubs), the list is not navigational (only a handful have articles), and it's a violation of not-directory. Elemimele (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a nice discussion with some good images, but it is not notable. Bduke (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTYELLOW. It's not the job of Wikipedia to inform of every single pub in a particular town/city. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDEA1

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

A simulator written by researchers for researchers, with little to no interest to the general public. The original paper received only few citations. Non-notable. Broc (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and France. Broc (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Ligorio

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

Local painter with minimal coverage in reliable sources. Non-notable. Broc (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Croatia. Broc (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's at least been several Slobodna Dalmacija articles on him. Could pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some links? --Broc (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As well as a 2006 documentary about him. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. He not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. https://arhiv.slobodnadalmacija.hr/?showSubscriptionModal=1 is behind a paywall. https://www.matica.hr/vijenac/366/Prodajte%20svoje%20tijelo/ is a passing mention. Croatian Wiki article isn't cited well. Nor is Serbo-Croatian wiki. No reliable source for exact dob. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LDC Watch

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

No evidence of notability could be found in online sources. The article only contains primary sources. Broc (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Senegal, Uganda, Cambodia, Nepal, and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This does not preclude a rename or speedy renomination at a time when input might be forthcoming. Star Mississippi 03:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Asian Swimming Championships

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

The tournament is a youth (Asian Asian Group) tournament, rather than the main continental swimming championship. The previous tournament for the main tournament was in 2016 Tokyo (10th) while the previous edition for the actual tournament in Bangalore, India (10th Asian Age Group). There's a lack of resources to create an article for theAsian Age Group Championships that would satisfy WP:GNG either. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Asia, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems to be an upcoming event so the article is probably premature. (Note that four of the previous ten editions have their own articles.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No this is different. This is the Asian Age Group Championship, there are no articles for the previous edition for event – the four you mentioned are for the senior tournament. It didn't help that initial cites for the tournament did not make the Age Group (youth) distinction. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This is quite confusing, so let's give it time to take place and for the article to improve - including finding an article name that incorporates "Age Group". Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a procedure to at least move this page to it's accurate title "2024 Asian Group Championships" while still under AfD, the page has been under a inaccurate title for too long. I have to emphasize that this is a different tournament than the senior Asian Championship yet again. In restrospect, I should have moved this first before nominating for deletion.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firearms Policy Coalition

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

After a search, topic does not appear to pass WP:NORG. There are some passing mentions in reliable independent sources, but I was unable to find anything that amounts to significant coverage. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Firearms, and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i created this one. Went back and did some further research to support the basic article. It is not a super in depth one, but i think it is sufficient to pass basic WP:NORG WP:GNG now.Iljhgtn (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think your additions help much. You added several passing mentions that contain very little or no content about the organization itself [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], a promotional article from a source with questionable reliability that is not independent as it is 90% primary content directly attributed to the director of the organization [86], a company profile by Bloomberg that doesn't count towards notability [87], an unreliable source [88], and a non-independent source [89]. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source of them from Newsweek now too dating to 2019. Added that to the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable (WP:NEWSWEEK). ––FormalDude (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this discussion could use a few more participants and a review of the sources added to this article after its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the writing in the article needs work, it clearly describes a legal advocacy group that has played a leading role in bringing several high-profile court cases.

Jbt89 (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all nice and dandy, but does it meet any notability guidelines? ––FormalDude (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the WP:NORG section on non-commercial organizations, an organization is generally notable if:

(1) The scope of its activities is national or international in scale, and

(2) It has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the organization.

The article as written has links to FPC filing lawsuits in California, Oregon, Colorado, Texas, Delaware, and New York, so its activities (i.e. filing lawsuits; that's the purpose of the organization) are clearly national in scale.

The point of contention, if I've understood the past comments correctly, is (2), and in particular whether articles about actions taken by FPC (court cases, mainly) constitute substantive coverage of FPC. A brief bit of googling found me the following sources not so far mentioned:

[90]:New York Times; two paragraphs about FPC in an article about trends in the firearms industry.

[91]: New York times; one paragraph about FPC specifically in an article discussing an action taken by FPC.

[92]: Texas Tribune. Yet another article about an action by FPC, but makes clear that the action is notable primarily because of FPC's involvement, and would not have been notable if undertaken by another actor.

There are probably more like these out there, and I'll add these ones to the article in a bit. Between them and the court cases already linked in the article (easy enough to find coverage of them in places other than Newsweek) I think this easily meets requirement (2). I will also point out that only the existence of sources, not their inclusion in the article, is required for WP:NORG. I think the difficulty we're having here is just that googling FPC brings up so many results to their own website that all the other coverage gets buried, so you have to be a little bit crafty with the search. Jbt89 (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misrepresenting the coverage in those sources.

NYT: 3 sentences, borderline sigcov.

NYT: 1 sentence, passing mention about non-notable lawsuits, is only discussed in the context of ghost guns.

Texas Trib: I don't see anything suggesting the FPC is what makes their legal brief notable (which it most certainly isn't, I think you mean newsworthy - an amicus brief is very rarely notable enough for its own article). The source just covers how the FPC weighed in on Texas’ abortion law, and it is obviously very standard for a lobbying/advocacy organization to weigh in on all sorts of legislation. It doesn't suggest at all that the newsworthiness is from the FPC's involvement, nor that their opinion is particularly notable.

If this was a truly notable topic, there would be clear significant coverage of the organization itself, rather than just brief mentions about lawsuits they created and laws they supported/opposed. The mere fact that they have filed lawsuits and supported and opposed a bunch of different laws doesn't make them notable. If that were the case, practically every advocacy group in the world would be notable. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 teams and organizations in DC Comics. Consensus to merge into List of teams and organizations in DC Comics and the redirect pointing to Black Dragon Society. Addition of the section into Black Dragon Society can be further discussed outside AfD if needed, as the consensus is there for only merging after multiple relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dragon Society (comics)

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

No apparent notability, entirely plot and fails WP:GNG. Cited only to individual comic books. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG.RomanRaju (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to ~~List of teams and organizations in DC Comics#B~~ Black Dragon Society (as part of a new In American popular culture section, or something like that) as WP:AtD. This is mentioned but not discussed in more detail in a few web articles. If someone turns up more secondary sources, I'd be happy to hear about it. There also seems to be a Marvel version, which is actually briefly discussed here, but that seems to be a Master thesis. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Another source, which has a bit of commentary, is All New, All Different? - A History of Race and the American Superhero, p. 27. Daranios (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - And a journal article with a bit of commentary. Daranios (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have to admit, the fact that several different groups had their own version of a fictional depiction of the Black Dragon Society makes considering sources a tad confusing. Like, this journal article is about the version used by Fawcett Comics, well before their buyout by DC, and thus is not the same "Black Dragon Society" created by Fox and Burnley that the majority of this article is about. But since Fawcett was later bought by DC, its kinda-sorta related? In any case, it definitely would be a useful source for discussing the fictional depictions of the group at the main Black Dragon Society article. Rorshacma (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Rorshacma: Indeed. I think it's worth considering that despite the introductory sentence, the title and content of the current article do cover appearances in comics by different pubishers, not specifically DC only. So I'm changing my preferred merge target to Black Dragon Society, viewing the reception/reaction in American popular culture as a sub-topic of the real organization. That said I still think that, while the current article presumably fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG, it still contains elements worth preserving, in a merge and its history, so that in the end it should remain a redirect. The qualifier "(comics)" is not extraordinary on Wikipedia, so I disagree with Shooterwalker that this should be an unlikely search term, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I can get behind redirecting this to the main article and adding a few sentences of information there discussing its use in pop culture using the sources you've found here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Very minor group with almost no sources. The three sources provided by Daranios' link are extremely trivial - they basically just name drop the group with no real explanation or coverage aside from the fact that they existed (and one of them appears to not even be about the same group, as it occurs in an issue of Captain Marvel from long before Fawcett was bought out by DC.) I also was not able to find anything better in my own searches, as most of what I can find are not reliable sources, such as DC Wikis. Without any real sources, I don't think merging to the list of teams would be appropriate. At best, this could possibly redirect to List of DC Comics characters: D#Dragon King, the one member of any note. That said, if anyone finds any good sources discussing the fact that multiple companies used the name "Black Dragon Socieity" as villains due to the real world group, it might be worth adding a few sentences discussing that trend to the article on the real-life Black Dragon Society. Rorshacma (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rorshacma: I think one such source could be Japan-Bashing - Anti-Japanism Since the 1980s, p. 112-113, but, *grr*, I can no longer see it. The book I've added above also has a very brief comment to that effect: "The Black Dragon Society, featured in much of American popular culture", to then go on to talk about the comics' version. No objection to covering the comics version briefly at Black Dragon Society and redirect there. Daranios (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I definitely think that while the DC specific version is not particularly notable itself, the fact that the real life group was used as villains for multiple unrelated pieces of fiction due to wartime propaganda and general anti-Japanese sentiment is something worth discussing in that article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Dragon Society - Per the discussion above, I think adding some information regarding its use as villains in multiple works of fiction would be worth mentioning at the article for the real life Black Dragon Society, in which case this article can be used as a redirect there. Note that I am not advocating copying/pasting any of the information from this current article over there, but instead adding a few new sentences using some of the sources mentioned by Daranios. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per Rorshacma. Does not reach WP:SIGCOV, and an unlikely search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Refactoring this to redirect. In good faith, I still don't really agree that a redirect makes sense here. But I believe in more WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of teams and organizations in DC Comics in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you talking about the merge to Black Dragon Society or the merge to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics? --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no preference. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears that consensus is developing to point this to Black Dragon Society but there is still consideration for pointing to List of DC Comics characters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added an "In popular culture" section to the Black Dragon Society article, which I believe is justified even if we decide to merge this with List of teams and organizations in DC Comics.Cortador (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, the Fawcett Comics version was listed there. If the outcome is merge to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics, a brief information on the DC version should be listed in that section you added. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing the DC version. Cortador (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which, I want to point out, is a very important part of merging. Merging does not just simply mean copying and pasting one article wholesale into another, unsourced information and all. Rorshacma (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - We still have to put the DC Comics version somewhere as I had mentioned to @Cortador:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        We don't. If no reliable sources cover the DC version, it's not notable. Cortador (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Cortador, Rtkat3, and Rorshacma: All New, All Different? - A History of Race and the American Superhero, p. 27, mentioned above, does verify and somewhat discuss the appearance in DC's All-Star Comics, and there are other mentions like in Comics Through Time. So while I think the DC version is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, I believe merging appropriate parts to both List of teams and organizations in DC Comics#B and Black Dragon Society#In popular culture, with a view to what's relevant to the target's topic, is warranted. The redirect, however, should point to Black Dragon Society#In popular culture in the end in my view, as ...(comics) is not specific to DC. Daranios (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps we can have those information taken care of by your suggestion by leaving brief information at the Black Dragon Society's section in question and the full information at the Black Dragon Society section at List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. Anyone else agree with what Daranios pitched? --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect‎ to Amoud University. This result should be considered a soft deletion. ✗plicit 12:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suleiman Ahmed Gulaid

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

Delete and redirect to Amoud University. Fails WP:GNG. The only SIGCOV I could find of the subject is in local Somalilander outlet Horn Diplomat [93]. He received routine coverage due to his involvement in Amoud University, but not enough to establish sufficient notability. Longhornsg (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Somalia. Longhornsg (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: an award he received, and a speech he made, both reported on by national press. Still not sure about notability. BhamBoi (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 14:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hazaras

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

Delete and redirect to Hazaras. Fails WP:NBOOKS. As part of WP:BEFORE, checked sourcing on interlanguage links as well but failed to turn up sources or coverage that would meet notability. Longhornsg (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Afghanistan. Longhornsg (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhornsg: all the articles in other languages were created a few years after the English one and they seem a copy of it. I would have initially suggested that, based on the lack on online sources, the book fail to meet notability criteria. On the other hand, it's a rather old (1989) specialized book, which might have been mentioned in offline sources around the time of publishing. It surely makes no sense to have two separate entries for the author, Hassan Poladi, and the book, but I can't decide which of the two pages should be redirected. --Broc (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NBOOKS.RomanRaju (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Canfield, Robert L. (May 1990). Siegfried, Mary Ann (ed.). "The Hazäras, Hassan Poladi, Stockton CA, Mughal Publishing Co., 1989. Pp. xvi + 431, index. (Distributed through Avenue Books, 840 W. Benjamin Holt Drive, Stockton, CA 95207) $19.95". Afghanistan Forum. Vol. 18, no. 3. Asia Society. pp. 34–35. ISSN 0889-2148. Retrieved 2024-01-28 – via Internet Archive.
  From this 1 December 2016 obituary^{Internet Archive} for Mary Ann Siegfried, the editor of the Afghanistan Forum: ""After two years, she returned home to Ohio via freighter and soon set out for New York City, where she landed a job with the Asia Society. The nonprofit’s mission was to introduce Americans to Asia, “since most people didn’t even know where it was,” she told The Star. Through editing the society’s newsletter on Afghanistan, The Afghanistan Forum, for more than 25 years, she became an expert on that country.""
  The book review notes: "Poladi was not a polished scholar and the book has certain weaknesses. He has assembled and attempted to use virtually everything he could find on his subject; hence, the inclusion of some unnecessary material. The comments of poorly informed travelers are treated with the same respect as the measured reports of thorough scholars. Nevertheless, after extensive summaries of such diverse works he usually comes to defensible conclusions of his own, and, despite his evident apologetic purpose, he presents a reasonable and plausible image of the Hazara experience. Indeed, weaknesses aside, this book is a rich mine of information on the Hazaras, for Poladi's inclusion of everything that is known about them makes it an incomparable source on the subject. The book is a kind of final utterance of Hassan Poladi, "a project of the heart," as someone close to him put it, for he passed away in the same year his book was published."
2. Hahn, Reinhard F. (1991). "Poladi, Hassan, The Hazäras. Stockton, California: Mughal Publishing Company, 1989. ISBN 0-929824-00-8, LCCN 88-092511. 431 pp., with 13 illustrations (4 maps, 2 tables, 2 charts, 5 photographs), 5 appendices. Hard cover. US $19.95. Distributed by Avenue Books (840 W. Benjamin Holt Dr., Stockton, CA 95207, U.S.A.)". Central Asiatic Journal. 35 (1–2): 153–156. JSTOR 41927783. Retrieved 2024-01-28 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "This book is remarkable in a number of regards. Most importantly, being a Hazara from Pakistan, enjoying access to Hazara American informants, and having received his tertiary education in his adopted country America, Poladi is in the unique position to relate the subject matter both as an insider and as a Western-trained scholar. He deserves much credit for his sincere and mostly successful endeavor to depict the Hazara’s world in an unbiased fashion, despite his admitted difficulties in detaching himself emotionally at all times, particularly while dealing with his people’s suffering through slavery and war. The exclusive use of the author's own technical and financial resources — aside from other persons' occasional help (e.g. typing, editing, translating, and library access) — makes The Hazäras the rather impressive result of a virtually single-handed effort."
  The review further notes: "The Härzaras has more than its fair share of grammatical and orthographic errors, inconsistencies and inadequacies. Inclusion of page headers would have facilitated quick reference. Captions in the body of the text ought to have been consistent with those in the List of Illustrations. The sporadic appearance of unexplained abbreviations in the bibliography ought to have been avoided. The subject index ought to have been extended to include all section headings. However, none of this lessens the value of Poladi's work to any significant degree. Being an important addition to the hitherto all too meager store of publications about this interesting nation, The Hazäras definitely deserves the attention of those interested in any Central-Asia-related aspect of Afghan studies."
3. JDM (Autumn 1989). "The Häzaras, by Hassan Poladi". The Middle East Journal. 43 (4): 725. JSTOR 4328048.
  The short review notes: "The Häzaras, by Hassan Poladi. Stockton, CA: Mughal Publishing, 1989. xvi + 431 pages. Append. Bibl. Index. $19.95. A detailed study of the Hazara people of Afghanistan. Examines social customs, religion, history, language, and economy. Also includes a chronology and commentaries on rulers from 1370. (JDM)"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Härzaras to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss sources Cunard identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK via the sources found by Cunard. Jfire (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per what user Cunard has provided, more then enough significance in WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (books). Noorullah (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jahanshah Javid

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

Non-notable journalist. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and Iran. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both of the article's references were written by the subject, and the subject has a history of editing the article. There are some other sources in existence (such as https://www.jstor.org/stable/20343473) but I do not believe they will add anything to the article. Redtree21 (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing discussing this individual that isn't a primary source. This is a brief mention [94], but nothing else for GNG found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As others have said, the article presently relies entirely on primary sources directly or indirectly created by the subject. A search on Google News reveals two more sources which refer to the subject. One ([95]https://iranhumanrights.org/who_we_are/]) identifies the subject as a senior researcher for the Center for Human Rights in Iran and the other ([96]) briefly appears to mention the subject only by name as a signatory to a letter calling for opposition to Iran's nuclear policy. There might be a marginal case for notability if the subject's work as part of the Center could be identified but otherwise it does not seem as if there are adequate sources to meet the WP:N standard. Pseudoname1 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several reliable sources have made him subject of their coverage. Sources are in Persian but reliable including BBC and Radio Farda: [97] [98] [99] --Drako (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sicaspi: the first two of those links are the same URL. All three are interviews with Javid, which don't count towards establishing notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the error, here are more correct links: [100] [101] [102] iewse[103]. In all these sources and interviews, interviewer is independent of this person, is a professional journalist and these sources are highly prestigous and reliable media with editorial oversight. In all of them he himself is the subject, he is not being interviewed about some third-party subject. As per WP:INTERVIEWS, interviews can also be counted towards notability, it says interviews that "show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful." The sources here are like that. Also, according to Radiofarda he has founded Iranian.com which is one of the oldest and (at the time) most popular Iranian websites [104]. That is also an example of the second item in WP:ANYBIO as he has had a significant contribution to Iranian and Persian internet history by founding one of the earliest Iranian websites. More evidence on that from the BBC [105]. Drako (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: neither the sources cited in the article nor those found by Pseudoname1 and by Sicaspi offer the SIGCOV we need to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources I presented not only cover this person "directly and in detail", he is the main subject of their coverage and they exclusively cover him, which is above the standard in WP:SIGCOV . I do not know what you mean by insignificance of their coverage of this person. Drako (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this friendly interview can be seen as "covering this person directly and in detail". The entire interview is about the website, not the journalist. No hard-hitting questions or criticism by the interviewer; all slow-ball pitches straight to his bat. Yes, interviews can provide SIGCOV. This one does not. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PBS is a reliable media platform, and is independent of this person. The required standard is for the interview to be deep and investigative which is what this interviews is, he is being asked specific questions about his work. Being friendly or hostile is not a requirement.

As per WP:ANYBIO :"a person who has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" is notable. His widely recognized contribution is starting one of the most popular websites in a country, hence contributing to the Internet history there. If you agree that website is widely covered and recognized as such, that makes him notable.

Also, How about the multitude of other sources? BBC and Radio Farda are highly reputable sources (and independent from this man) that have covered his person in depth as mentioned in the above links. Even in their interviews, in these sources material you see is "interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts as mentioned in wp:interview#notability. Drako (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really consider the PBS interview to be "deep and investigative"? What exactly is the interviewer "investigating" there? You seem to be the only one here who considers it anything but a puff piece. Owen× ☎ 19:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to judge interviews to be awarded Pulitzer prize. Sources should just meet a bare minimum. Also I do not get why you are stuck on this particular source. Almost ten other more thorough sources have been presented in this AfD, for example:
Radio Farda [106] goes in depth exploring the guy and his contribution, his website

BBC has dedicated an entire episode of the programme Chamedan to him [107], depicting details of his life.

First persian podcast [108], another BBC production, has made an entire exclusive programme on him and covered him [109]

Mahdi Falahati has hosted him on his Hard Talk style show on Voice of America and has done a thorough, deep and investigative interview with him [110]

Drako (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we will not be playing this game. You said, All the sources I presented not only cover this person 'directly and in detail', he is the main subject of their coverage and they exclusively cover him. And by All you were referring to all six of the sources you presented above. The PBS interview was one of those sources you presented, therefore sufficient as a counterexample to disprove your "All" claim. Your options at this point are either (1) show us how the PBS interview meets your description of "directly and in detail"; or (2) retract your original claim. If not all your sources provide the required significant coverage, please amend your original claim to state which of those sources are the ones you believe provide SIGCOV. WP:REFBOMBing and playing Whac-A-Mole by shifting your claim to a different source whenever one is challenged will not work here. Owen× ☎ 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Great Pottery Throw Down. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Pottery Throw Down (series 5)

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

Contested draftification. No indication this particular season was notable, and no clear sourcing found. Star Mississippi 03:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 03:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - Does not satisfy television notability. There is only one reference, and it is not significant coverage about the show because it is primarily about a person. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or as WP:ATD, Merge with main article The Great Pottery Throw Down. Here are some reviews of the fifth season: [111] [112] [113]. Deleting the content would result in a loss of valuable material for the main page, which would have no information related to season 5. --Broc (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a properly sourced summary into the main The Great Pottery Throw Down, season does not have WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 17:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jamaica–United States relations. Star Mississippi 01:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Kingston

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

The article says nothing about the Embassy of the United States in Kingston, and whatever it says about Jamaica–United States relations can be added there. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Jamaica, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unnecessary bilateral relations content fork created in a spree of non notable embassy articles. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can be a standalone article given that it meets WP:GNG and that there is coverage specifically about the embassy (as opposed to the bilateral relationship): JO, Radio Jamaica News, JO 2, Jamaica Gleaner, Caribbean Journal, The Washington Post. The article can be further completed with descriptions of the architecture from the architect's website KCCT. Pilaz (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside the architect’s self-praise, there really isn’t coverage about the embassy building: we have a couple of routine articles about its guards going on strike, one about some colored lights being flashed onto its exterior, another about it closing for a Federal holiday (like every single non-essential Federal building in existence) and one about a guard who admitted taking bribes. None of this in any way amounts to significant coverage of the purported topic. — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Pilaz – Kjerish (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  see WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jamaica–United States relations: the thorough source analysis carried out by the nom has not been refuted--or even addressed--by the "Keep" voters or the PERXs. Fleeting mentions do not add up to SIGCOV. Owen× ☎ 18:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Su-hwan (footballer)

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

Can't find much significant coverage. I can find two news articles about him in minor newspapers in Korean [114] and [115], but that's it. He seems to have only played in a handful of games. toobigtokale (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG, poorly sourced. Svartner (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and participation leaning closer to consensus that the subject's coverage within her narrow but important field are sufficient to keep. BD2412 T 01:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Claxton

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

Non-notable researcher under basic criteria for notability. A search turned up no significant coverage other than the Sydney Morning Herald article. ~~Notability guideline for academics does not apply because she was not a professor at an academic institution.~~ voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, and Australia. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Diserak (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NACADEMIC#1b: Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. As her article notes, she identified over 70 new tardigrade species and made notable contributions to the taxonomy of the genus Minibiotus. Sydney Morning Herald article is certainly an example of significant coverage, meeting WP:SIGCOV as well. Diserak (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've omitted the next sentence of NACADEMIC: In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. Citation to one SMH article is not a substantial number of references to academic publications of researcher other than the person in question.

Additionally, although the SMH article meets SIGCOV, NBASIC requires SIGCOV in multiple independent sources. As I noted, I could not find anything other than the SMH article.

I would recommend providing three sources that you believe establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is an essay as is not vetted by the community, so let's keep the discussion policy compliant. I'm expecting such citations due to nature of her research. Someone here would come up with such coverage if they have access to paywalled journals. I'm not a subscriber of research journals. Just created it based on the news coverage. Diserak (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only an essay and there must be sources are not good arguments. I cited THREE because it is a short-hand way of asking you to meet your burden of verifying the claim that the article subject meets NACADEMIC. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the 2013 review referred to [116] ? Because that only has 21 citations on Google Scholar, which doesn't seem a lot to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Don't need to be a professor for WP:NPROF to apply, given academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you. I missed that part of NPROF. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, her name isn't in the authors list of that paper. Does anyone have a reference for the actual review? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Prof not yet passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete I don't see how WP:NPROF is met, and whilst the Sydney Morning Herald article is good, need multiple such sources to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, I appreciate I'm going out on a limb here, but my feeling is that by NPROF people are notable if their work is seen as significant by their peers, and in their area of research; Claxton's problem is that she worked in a small and specialised area, where high citation counts are unlikely - not that she was non-notable in that particular area. An alternative justification is that one really good newspaper article isn't quite enough (we'd like two) and her research isn't maybe quite enough, but two not-quite-enoughs add up to a pass. One day, people interested in tardigrades will be grateful to us for keeping thsi information. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your position and going out on a limb for this; I'm keenly aware of the issues Wikipedia has had with covering women in science. The issue here is that NPROF requires more than one RS stating that a person's contributions are significant in a field. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep one really really strong article will go a long way. We've got that in our article. While the GNG asks for multiple, we've got non-independent sources and I'd claim this is a good case for IAR. Hobit (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 God's Learning Channel. ✗plicit 11:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPTB-DT

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

Not notable on its own; merge into God's Learning Channel. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRPV-DT. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with God's Learning Channel: Even as far back as 2011, the individual notability of this station was questioned enough that a previous article was deleted via PROD. A new article was created in 2016, but notability standards have only tightened since even then — and if it couldn't survive in 2011, there's even less reason to have a separate article now. (Because the recreation amounts to a de facto contesting, I procedural declined a PROD that came right before this AfD.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 God's Learning Channel. ✗plicit 11:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KMLM-DT

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

Not notable on its own; merge into God's Learning Channel. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRPV-DT. Worth noting: this station was not always associated with GLC, but that was only its first two years on the air. (It was built by National Minority TV, which was the Trinity Broadcasting Network's way of using an FCC ownership rule loophole.^[1]) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Paine, Judy (October 29, 1988). "New station on air". The Odessa American. Odessa, Texas. p. 17A. Retrieved January 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

Merge with God's Learning Channel: this is another remnant of the circa-2005 "notability standards" where we, at times, seemed to give any broadcast station at least a stub, even full-time relays of other services. Even before 2021 we were theoretically discouraging those, but the standards were still loose enough for a PROD to be declined in 2011. (I had to procedural contest a second PROD attempt that was made right before this AfD because of the 2011 one.) I don't think the limited pre-GLC history of this station would weigh down that article much. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No valid rationale for deletion resulting in WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Express trains in India

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

The deletion should be done as we can see same content is copied in Rail Transport in India article and I guess Express trains in India should Have info about Passenger Train, Mail, Suvidha Express, Jan Sadharan Express, Yuva Express and AC Express merged and written rather than the content available as of now, Bhagwan22 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bhagwan22 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a merge proposal started at Talk:Express_trains_in_India#Merge_proposal by you. There is no need of this AfD discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep as no valid deletion rationale provided. ~ A412 ^talk! 12:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep India is a serious train country. We wouldn’t delete the TGV article or the High Speed rail in China article so why delete this? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

all listen then agree to merge all the articles mentioned into this article with valid reason provided here Talk:Express_trains_in_India#Merge_proposal Bhagwan22 (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Eraserhead1. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dobrolet (cargo airline)

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

I couldn't find sources to show it is notable or a good WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This was possibly Aeroflot's name when it was first founded. No relation to this Dobrolet. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - - Not too much coverage to meet notability.Royal88888 (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pero Defformero

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

I may be missing something due to not reading Serbian, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, or that there is a good WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aviation Week. Given the ongoing lack of interest in the topic, this ATD is probably the best outcome we're going to get. Star Mississippi 03:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna.aero

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AfD was closed as no consensus due to limited participation. As this has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, I really hope we can now get this resolved. It exists, but I couldn't find that sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a WP:RS, but there isn't much coverage on the publication itself. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aviation Week: Defunct website, with little notability found per the sources used. I don't find mentions of them beyond passing mentions. I'd be ok with a selective !merge into the same article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Lancashire Primary Care Trust

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Just 2 gnews hits. Article seems refbombed for last statement with 8 sources. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and England. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References are adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 01:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rossy Aguirre

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus due to limited participation - as this has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, I really hope we can now get it resolved. She exists and has a career, but I couldn't establish that she is notable. Boleyn (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please. That was less than 2 months ago and sources were presented....Of course, she's still notable. And of course coverage still indicates notability. Keep then, keep now. I will add the sources If that's all it takes.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)
- Where an AfD is closed as 'no consensus due to lack of participation', by convention an immediate renomination is allowable. This is covered in Wikipedia:Deletion_process#No_quorum, namely closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR). Daniel (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel: I am not sure why you would direct me there and make this comment in reply to my !vote but thank you all the same. I never doubted this was allowed. I only pinged you out of courtesy as I did ping everyone who had contributed to the last Afd, not to alert you of some violation of any rule. I just find this 2nd Afd very ...unnecessary. I have added the sources. See for yourself. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "Please. That was less than 2 months ago" regarding the last AfD. I am simply pointing out that the time since the last AfD is irrelevant here, given it was closed as no consensus due to limited participation. Daniel (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right, fair, yes that made sense, apologies.i should not have mentioned the time span. It was more to suggest the tags would eventually be removed and that to allow contributors more time to do so would have maybe been a good idea. But you are right, let me clarify: whether yesterday or in 2 years from now, I think this new Afd is unnecessary. Sources presented should have be taken into account. Maybe, now that tags are removed and sources (+ other sources) have been added, this time will be the last, though. Thanks again@Daniel and sorry about this, I am sort of ranting. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
notifications to participants in 1st Afd: @Daniel, Liz, MisterWizzy, and Rublamb:.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources exist to expand this article. Because we consider the article's potential and not just its current state, guidelines are to keep. Wikipedia is a process and there is no time limit on when an article is improved. Rublamb (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sources. Toughpigs (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Bartolin Jr.

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Travel and tourism, Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and likely WP:UPE. He's the CEO of a hotel called The Broadmoor and the article was written by Thebroadmoor1918, a WP:SPA. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NicheStack TCP/IPv4

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

Not my area of expertise, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N, or see a good WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandula Jayasinghe

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

I am afraid, this biography does not meet both WP:NBASIC and WP:SONGWRITER criteria. Existing references at best is WP:PASSING. I will add a full source assessment table. Chanaka L (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Uploaded New References to the article, Most of his references are offline and I found some Newspaper articles related to him. InfoSeeker.sl (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the second assessment table. I am afraid, the issue of WP:SIGCOV persists. I did a Google search before the nomination, and it did not yield any worthwhile results, So I am not surprised you are finding it difficult to come up with SIGCOV sources. Chanaka L (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Found Some Newspaper Articles Related to him but those articles couldn't find on the internet. Most of them are Old Newspaper articles and that time few Sri Lankan newspapers published articles on the internet, is there any way to Upload those articles to Wikipedia? InfoSeeker.sl (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use them as citations if they are WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Chanaka L (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You... InfoSeeker.sl (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, How do you personally come to hold the copyrights of photographs of the subject? The award ceremony and especially the 1964 Malwana Waluawa photo? Are you in any way connected to the subject? Chanaka L (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I participated in that event last year, and I was curious about his works, especially the song 'Issara Bandi Pema,' which is my favorite. So, I tried to Google him, and I didn't see any Wikipedia page about him. During that event, I obtained a photo from the award ceremony, and I'm trying to create some articles on Wikipedia. I chose him as the subject for my first article. Last month, I went to the Department of National Archives to find old newspaper articles about him and some other old artists in Sri Lanka. During that time, I met a man who knows about the music industry and Jayasinghe very well. He provided me with information about Jayasinghe's personal life and assisted me in finding the old articles. I discovered four articles about Jayasinghe. Additionally, the Malwana Walawwa photo is a damaged photograph that is 60 years old, and I restored it. InfoSeeker.sl (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of his details were obtained from the Sri Lankan Lyrics Association Artist Book and through YouTube InfoSeeker.sl (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Chanakal
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://archives1.dailynews.lk/2020/08/12/tc/225503/lyrics-move		WP:PASSING	✘ No
https://songhub.lk/artist/bandula-jayasinghe		Just a song collection	✘ No
https://www.lankadeepa.lk/latest_news/%E0%B6%89%E0%B7%83%E0%B7%8A%E0%B7%83%E0%B6%BB-%E0%B6%B6%E0%B7%90%E0%B6%B3%E0%B7%92-%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%99%E0%B6%B8-%E0%B7%84%E0%B7%92%E0%B6%AD%E0%B7%8A%E0%B7%80%E0%B6%BD-%E0%B7%83%E0%B7%94%E0%B7%80%E0%B6%B3%E0%B6%BA%E0%B7%92/1-481693	~ WP:INTERVIEW	WP:PASSING	✘ No
https://archives.dailynews.lk/2012/04/16/fea01.asp		article is not about the artist	✘ No
https://island.lk/the-bandaranaikes-and-the-bevens-of-horagolla/		article is not about the artist	✘ No
https://www.sinhalasongbook.com/?lyrics=bandula-jayasinghe		no content, a cords db	✘ No
https://gossiplankaralla.com/%E0%B7%80%E0%B7%92%E0%B7%81%E0%B7%8A%E0%B7%80%E0%B7%8F%E0%B6%B7%E0%B7%92%E0%B6%B1%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%8A%E0%B6%AF%E0%B6%B1-%E0%B6%9A%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%8F-%E0%B7%83%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%8A%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%8F%E0%B6%B1/	a gossip site	a photo stream of a provincial award ceremony	✘ 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}}.

23 January

Source assessment table prepared by User:Chanakal
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://archives.sarasaviya.lk/2012/03/29/_art.asp?fn=sa12032919&pn=18		The source lists some of the songs the subject composed, it is a notice of a concert, but I am afraid it is not WP:SIGCOV.	✘ No
https://www.worldgenweb.org/lkawgw/gen1001.html		a genealogical site, WP:UGC	✘ No
https://mirrorarts.lk/news/7359-2023-12-01-09-50-44	unknown editorial process	WP:PASSING	✘ No
https://divaina.lk/%E0%B6%9C%E0%B7%9A%E0%B6%BA-%E0%B6%B4%E0%B6%AF-%E0%B6%BB%E0%B6%A0%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%8F-%E0%B7%83%E0%B6%82%E0%B6%9C%E0%B6%B8%E0%B6%BA%E0%B7%9A-%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%8A%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%92/		WP:PASSING	✘ No
https://mawbima.lk/2024/01/01/%E0%B6%9C%E0%B7%9A%E0%B6%BA-%E0%B6%B4%E0%B6%AF-%E0%B6%BB%E0%B6%A0%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%8F-%E0%B7%83%E0%B6%82%E0%B6%9C%E0%B6%B8%E0%B6%BA%E0%B7%9A-%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%8A%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%94/		covers the same news above, WP:PASSING	✘ No
https://archives1.dailynews.lk/2020/08/12/tc/225503/lyrics-move		WP:PASSING	✘ No
https://www.sarasaviya.lk/films-local/2023/11/30/26087/%E0%B6%86%E0%B6%AF%E0%B6%BB%E0%B6%BA%E0%B6%A7-%E0%B6%9A%E0%B7%85-%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%9C%E0%B7%84%E0%B7%90%E0%B6%9A%E0%B7%92-%E0%B6%AF%E0%B7%99%E0%B6%BA%E0%B6%9A%E0%B7%8A-%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%9C%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%90%E0%B6%AD		WP:PASSING	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Chanaka L (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chanaka L (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and source analyses. I moved the article to draft a week ago, but it was moved back same day with little improvement, and removal of templates. Wikishovel (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 God's Learning Channel. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRPV-DT

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

Subject is not notable on its own; merge into God's Learning Channel. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge Especially given that this is the only article related to the network that has a single secondary source. I only made it since somehow there was no article even covering it at the time. The material in here would be immensely useful for improving God's Learning Channel, which also frankly needs additional historical info if there was significant coverage in the Midland and Odessa papers once they moved their headquarters down to Odessa. You probably could have tagged this as a merge instead of an AfD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with God's Learning Channel: It certainly would appear that, for all intents and purposes, the history of KRPV is the history of God's Learning Channel, give-or-take some cable-only years before 1986. I've wondered at times whether we've needed articles on most of its transmitters — I don't think there's much separate programming on any of them — but never got around to doing anything about it. (For what it's worth, the lack of an article before 2020 was because a previous article on the station was deleted via PROD in 2011.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out I already have a number of clippings from the Odessa American on them. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Indonesia, Vancouver

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

Based entirely on primary sources, and article is mainly a list of consuls. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Indonesia, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources Jothefiredragon (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to indicate notability at present, and it seems unlikely that it is notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notability for standalone article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KDVD-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Let'srun (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, probably the right call now. While older than many non-notable diginet coatracks, it did not come on air until December 2000 and was not originally broadcasting to the Phoenix area. If it did, it probably broadcast Hispanic Television Network (HTVN), as that's who owned it, or possibly the English-language American Independent Network. Newspaper from Globe is not available. I figure I'll put this likely fact here, too; it's not named for a disc format. The station took its present call sign shortly after one of the brothers that owned it, David Primm, died in 2021. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another remnant of the looser "notability standards" we had c. 2009. There's not much else that can be done when an all-national-programming station doesn't get, or at least has easily-accessible, significant coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:sigcov Jothefiredragon (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) asilvering (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coulomb Affair

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

Per lack of reliable independent sources and non-notability. No reliable sources have been put on the article in over a decade. The German Wiki article also has no references so wouldn't be of help. The links in the "External links" section are all unreliable. Even the Theosophy Wiki which is unreliable cannot provide a single independent source [117], so you know this topic has not been covered outside of the field of Theosophy. There is no academic coverage or reception of this topic from historians. The only reliable source I have found is from J. Barton Scott but one source is not enough to have an article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: multiple sources listed in 'Literature' and 'External links' by different authors and publishers, both contemporary (19th century) and much later (20th century). Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of those sources are reliable unfortunately, they are all written by Theosophists or link to the main Theosophy website as does theosociety.org. http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/ fails WP:RS. We can't cite biased sources written by fringe advocates WP:Fringe. Are there any neutral academics or scholars that have discussed this topic in detail? I am not seeing any mainstream academic coverage. One of the books cited in the "literature" section is "Hartmann, Franz: Wahrheit und Dichtung, Die Theosophische Gesellschaft und der Wunderschrank von Adyar. o.O. 1906", no page numbers are given. Looks like WP:OR to me, but Franz Hartmann was a Theosophist. We wouldn't cite this source. It look's to me like someone has just dumped those sources to pad out the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a notable event in the history of Theosophy, and it has been studied by historians. It is covered on pages 87–95 of Campbell's Ancient Wisdom Revived [118], which summarizes the importance thusly:

In order to comprehend the larger significance of the Coulomb affair and the report of the S.P.R.-the reasons the controversy drew so much attention in both India and Europe-it is necessary to examine the symbolic position of Theosophy in Asia and in the West... The year of the Coulomb affair was the year in which the forces of change and those for perpetuation of the colonial situation struggled with the symbolic issue of the Ilbert Bill, a measure to give Indians greater power over their own affairs. The issue inflamed passions on both sides and was associated with deep Anglo-Indian hostility against the natives and those Europeans who sympathized with them. The Coulomb affair reflected as well the antagonism between Theosophists and Christian missionaries. Theosophical support of Hindu religions was counterproductive to the Christians efforts to evangelize. Madame Coulomb found a receptive publisher when she offered her letters to a missionary college journal.

A second source from a historian of religion which covers the topic in detail is Scott, J. Barton. "Miracle Publics: Theosophy, Christianity, and the Coulomb Affair". History of Religions. 49 (2): 172–196. doi:10.1086/649525. ISSN 0018-2710. Here is the summary of this paper, from its introduction:

With an eye to recent scholarship that theorizes the contemporary relations of religion, publicity, and secularity, this essay returns to an earlier moment in the unfolding of global modernity: the colonial and occult late nineteenth century. It analyzes documents from the Coulomb Affair of 1884-85 in order to ask how various participants in that scandal conceived of the public sphere and its purchase upon the truthful, the divine, and the real--a complex of concerns distilled by the Theosophical slogan, "There is no religion higher than truth." In particular, I ask how Theosophists and Christian missionaries negotiated the ethic of openness so characteristic of the affair and, arguably, of modern publics more broadly.

These sources demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Jfire (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there isn't enough secondary material to make an article about this. Maybe someone could throw a line in the Theosophy article, but that's about all the notability I can find. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources presented by Jfire are convincing. Plus, the German page has 2 footnotes with what seems to be reliable refs. Plus, a really quick look at the GB results show that this is an important event in the history of Theosophy and beyond, and that it was discussed in numerous reliable sources, more or less extensively.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess the sources provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It is indeed frustratingly difficult to find coverage that is not authored by the Theosophists themselves, because boy did they ever sweep the field on this one in the following century. However, I think the two sources presented above should be sufficient for minimal requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NotAGenious (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devachan

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable Theosophy article with no reliable sources. No independent references exist outside of Theosophy books or websites. H.P. Blavatsky and Leadbeater are not WP:RS but these are the only sources cited. No historians have covered this topic. I believe the article is not notable and should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In universe character who hasn't received coverage by independent reliable sources of any sort of depth Big Money Threepwood (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a "character". Please take a little more time with articles WP:BEFORE !voting. Jfire (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell, since no independent sources exist, and all we have is someone's interpretation of primary sources Big Money Threepwood (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is discussed in Campbell, Bruce F. (1980). Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical Movement. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-03968-1. Here's is a selective excerpt:

Development is conceived in Theosophy as continuing after death, in two out-of-incarnation states called kama-loka and devachan. After death the individual puts off his physical body and lives in his astral body until the force has become exhausted which has been generated by the emotions of the just-completed life. His movement from the physical plane is a movement into the plane of kama-loka, or plane of desire... When the emotions of the immediately past life have been dissipated, a second death occurs and the astral body falls away. The individual finds himself in his mental body and in the lower mental world. This realm is called the Devachanic state, and corresponds to the idea of heaven. Devachan is "paradise," a place of bliss and supreme felicity, and "logic tells us that no sorrow or even a shade of pain can be experienced therein." In devachan the upper triad functions solely as a mind "clothed in a very ethereal vesture which it will shake off when the time comes to return to earth."

It is discussed in more depth in Chajes, Julie (2019-01-02). Recycled Lives: A History of Reincarnation in Blavatsky's Theosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-090914-7. and the fifth chapter of Harlass, Ulrich (2021-07-19). Die orientalische Wende der Theosophischen Gesellschaft: Eine Untersuchung der theosophischen Lehrentwicklungen in der Zeit zwischen den Hauptwerken Alfred Percy Sinnetts (in German). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-069883-1. I don't speak German, but here's an excerpt from an English-language review of the latter book:

Similarly, Harlass discusses devachan as a concept developed in conversation with Spiritualist debates. It was positioned along with kama loka (often kama loca in Sinnett) as two distinct places. While davachan was conceived as the place where one waits for one’s next incarnation, kama loka was identified as the place where various “entities” reside that are not subject to reincarnation. These entities were understood to be those present at séances. Direct communication with the dead was explicitly rejected. Again, Harlass succeeds in describing the debate over devachan as embedded in contemporary discussions that were primarily concerned with perceived discrepancies in the Theosophical doctrine of reincarnation. Devachan was then positioned against these critics as an allegedly “Oriental” concept, particularly the position of Kingsford and Maitland. The “Oriental” here depicts a discursive strategy by which Sinnett, Blavatsky, and also Row and Malavankar claim exclusivity, as Harlass asserts.

These sources show that this concept has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and hence meets WP:GNG and is eligible for a standalone article. That aside, I think the topic is perhaps better covered in a more general article covering Theosophist beliefs about the afterlife and reincarnation. But the editorial decision of how to best cover a notable topic can be discussed in a venue other than AfD. Jfire (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated above, an easy Keep; Goggle otherwise would have pointed me to the hair salon. Sparafucil (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the sources mentioned above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources provided meet GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Caldwell (government official)

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

I'm not seeing the sort of independent coverage required to meet WP:NPEOPLE, nor does this person's jobs meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL.

Of the third party sources used in the article:

This is a thinly rewritten press release and isn't independent
This is also a press release
This is easily the most significant coverage I can find, which isn't saying much, but per RSN I'm inclined to think Allgov isn't reliable Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Alabama, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - basically a CV. SportingFlyer T·C 18:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

José Lavat

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

He has had some success, but I couldn't establish that this voice actor passes WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because of the independent coverage in reliable sources about him, in La Tercera, El Universal and in a lot of Spanish-language newspapers in various countries at the time of his death. He's also actor. Has given his name to the Lavat Awards (for voice actors), which contributes to his notability.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are OBITs/memorials, database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Nothing above is actuall a source about the subject. // Timothy :: talk 03:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Obituaries as sources. (aka WP:OBIT) states: "Obituaries published by high-quality reliable sources are often treated as valuable sources for articles on deceased individuals, since they provide a broad overview of the subject's life." Not to mention the fact that when so many obituaries are published in the media it certainly indicates something about notability. And most of them are (obviously) addressing the (deceased) subject directly (and in depth).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. Nothing above is actuall a source about the subject. I am sorry but I am directing other users to the article itself, that I have improved a bit, and where I added sources (including some from the newspapers I only mentioned here by name; and please note that there a lot of them, and that I didn't add them all. The Mubi page is ...about him (and only here to show he is also an actor). And the source about the Lavat Awards states, as whoever who opens the link can verify, in Spanish (roughly/penultimate paragraph): "The Lavat Awards are the most important Awards for voice actors/dubbing in Latin America. They were created in 2019 in honour of José Lavat, one of the most prominent figures in this field in Latin America". I have, I'm afraid, no further comment.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kenya women's international footballers. ✗plicit 03:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Sawe

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

Redirect to List of Kenya women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kenya. JTtheOG (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 12:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 03:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Millicent Hikuam

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2013, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Hunter

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

Regardless, WP:TNT. Currently, the only refs are WP:SELFPUB. Online, I can only find profiles, press releases, and mentions in sources. TLA (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Finance, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the subject from having to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability, but the sourcing present here isn't getting him over GNG at all. I also strongly suspect conflict of interest, as the article has been extensively edited by somebody with the username "Ahunter12388", and even the creator "Mike123321123" has a username that's using similar numbers despite the "Mike" part not being technically connectable to anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to figure out whay it has been nominated for deletion? I also got a note form someone asking for $2000 to fix it which appears to be a fraud Huntwall (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This reads like a publicity hand-out, with the lead paragraph a huge glut of a background resume. Tells us what his positions were, what boards he's sat on, but not much on actual achievements. The recent achievements section is more of the same. Education section is just more of his resume. — Maile (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and look through the rest of Mike123321123's extremely sus contribs. jp×g 🗯️ 05:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If folks wish to continue the TP discussion, or the proposed merger, that can happen editorially. A fourth relist shows no indication it will be fruitful Star Mississippi 02:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Presti 'ndrina

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

The Lo Presti 'ndrina does not exist, violates Wikipedia:No original research. The so-called Lo Presti 'ndrina only seems to exist on Wikipedia. I checked on Google, and apart from Wikipedia and offshoots, there is nothing. If anything, the Lo Presti's are a 'ndrina or clan, but even for that there is hardly any evidence, unless I missed something. No Lo Presti 'ndrina is mentioned in the book Fratelli die Sangue, for instance. The more I check the sources of this article, the more it becomes clear that there is a lot of inacurate selective quoting to prove that something like the Lo Presti crime family exist. For more detail, please check the talk page for a previous (and ongoing) discussion.--DonCalo (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What there is is a 'Ndrangheta boss Rocco Lo Presti, who had connections with several powerful 'ndrine (Mazzaferro, Ursino) but had no 'ndrina on his own. No Lo Presti 'ndrina exist, and certainly not now that he is dead. His business is taken over by his nephews from the Ursino 'ndrina. If you want to write something on the infiltration of the 'Ndrangheta in Bardonecchia or Val Susa you could create an article on 'Ndrangheta infiltration in Bardonecchia for instance and/or start a relevant section in the article on Rocco Lo Presti.--DonCalo (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. DonCalo (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. DonCalo (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main argument to delete this article is that it violates the Wikipedia:No original research rule. The information in the article, which switched name from Lo Presti crime family to Lo Presti 'ndrina back and forth, can be easily incorporated into the article on Rocco Lo Presti. Google searches on Lo presti crime family, Lo Presti 'ndrina or Lo Presti clan only show results from Wikipedia and Wikipedia replicates. -- DonCalo (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively into 'Ndrangheta: the information seems verifiable, but not notable enough for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 22:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aliw Broadcasting Corporation#Radio. Viable ATD with no indication further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYAW

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

No significant coverage in RS. Could be redirected to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation. MarioGom (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All the sources in the article are reliable. The first source states that the station is licensed. The second source talks about the station. The rest of the sources talk about the station's programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG 😎🙃 09:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A mere primary record like the initial sources can be reliable, but it is not a secondary source and it does not provide significant coverage. Which source provides significant coverage about DYAW? MarioGom (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is indeed a secondary source. And so are the last two. Those 3 therefore provide WP:SIGCOV to the subject. I have explained more than enough. And I won't respond to this post again. ASTIG 😎🙃 09:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 is exactly the opposite of significant coverage, it is a passing mention in routine coverage. The source just states [...] Aliw Media Group chairman, and Dr. Nicomedes Abia [...] of Lamrag Radio Network jointly sign an agreement for the launch and inaugural of radio 89.9 DYAW, provincial station of Karambola and radio station DWIZ in Tacloban City. That does not addresses the topic directly and in detail (WP:SIGCOV). MarioGom (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation#Radio per nom, due to failure of WP:SIGCOV. I've reviewed all four of the references in the current version of the article: #1 is a government database chart listing, #2 is precisely as described by MarioGom above, #3 is a dead link but the title of the citation implies it's an obituary about a late broadcaster, and not directly about the station itself, and #4 is a passing mention. Left guide (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough and secondary, with the ones mentioned by Astig in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to point to an independent, secondary, realiable source with significant coverage? MarioGom (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 is an independent, secondary, realiable source that has WP:SIGCOV since it's about the station. So are sources 3 and 4 since it's about the station's programming. SBKSPP (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation#Radio: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Agree with above, the refs are not SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 13:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG to me Jothefiredragon (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, arguments divided between Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above. Additional analysis of source material available on this subject would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation#Radio per Left guide and TimothyBlue. Israel's Son 07:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ladonia (micronation). Should editors wish to exercise editorial discretion and merge content from this article, the page history remains available. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Shelby

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

Very little indication that subject is notable. PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only independent reliable secondary source is the BBC, and that's only a passing mention, which doesn't meet the notability criteria. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fascinating tidbit, but not enough coverage of this individual. Even what's used is one BBC story and the rest are primary or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to offer an opinion on whether to delete or not, but I think the Dagens Nyheter article should qualify as a reliable source (I've been told it is "The NY Times of Sweden", but that could be not entirely accurate). The article is a decent-length interview about how Ladonia will continue to function after the death of Lars Vilks.

I was surprised the original article was never nominated for deletion before, so I added (what I thought) was a better written article in tone/style and added some additional references. There are quite a few more interviews and articles where she is named only as the "Queen of Ladonia" or "Queen Carolyn", like podcast appearances, radio interviews, an interview on Al Jazeera (with Prince Michael of Sealand also on the panel), and a 15 minute segment on a German TV program called Galileo. There is also a chapter on Ladonia in a Swedish book called "Mikronationer" (and she is interviewed as well as on the cover of the book), and Lars Vilks' last book before his death (Nimis) talks about her role running Ladonia. I can dig up the links to the references, though I'd rather save the effort if the article is destined for deletion anyway. Kulib (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dagens Nyheter is a strong candidate to be seen as the newspaper of record in Sweden. It qualifies. /Julle (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a Mapping micronations (Al Jazeera, 2014) interview source. There is also a 2023 WGN Radio 720 interview ("Her Majesty is the host and coordinator of the 2023 MicroCon."). The 2022 BBC source seems to be more than a passing mention because it includes biographical information with context. A redirect to Ladonia (micronation) where she is mentioned and pictured seems supported. Beccaynr (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think with much of this article and available sources focused on Ladonia and/or the role of the monarch generally, instead of sourced information about Shelby, WP:PAGEDECIDE seems relevant to consider and further supports a redirect at this time. The Ladonia article 1) provides needed context to help understand Shelby, and Shelby is likely covered better there given the limited independent/secondary sourced information that appears to be available about her 2) the relationship between Shelby and Ladonia seems better appreciated in the context of the Ladonia article, 3) most sourcing does not appear to be independent or secondary, e.g. a book by Lars Vilks, interviews of Shelby. I am not able to access the Dagens Nyheter source but I did check the Wikipedia Library and only found a Spanish-language reprint of the BBC source. Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Drottningen av Ladonien: ’Vår plikt att röra oss framåt’" in Dagens Nyheter, which has been added since this was taken to AfD (and after the first couple of comments) ha longer coverage of Carolyn Shelby herself. "Utopidiplomati i ett låtsas-FN" in Ping (former magazine for sv:DIK, 20 November 2015, has slightly more than merely mentioning her in passing, but not at all the same level of information as the Dagens Nyheter article. I think the additions to the article since this discussion stared makes it keepable. /Julle (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comments about the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the editors mentioning Dagens Nyheter. Also, given the reativey large amount of people involved in creating Ladonia (most micronations are things like a farmer in a dispute with the authorities), I would argue being their nominal leader would likely make her presumptively notable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per Beccaynr's analysis. Based on what I can access, the Dagens Nyheter article seems like it's largely based on an interview? Even if it isn't, we still have NOPAGE for these cases when a topic is better covered in another page. An article on Shelby will end up being somewhat of a coatrack for Ladonia governance, so covering her at Ladonia would be preferable.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be almost nothing to say about this person, who "[serves] as the Queen and head of state of the Royal Republic of" something that's succeeded in being trademarked. Non-notable. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements made since nom. The Dagens Nyheter source is helpful. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is some coverage in Swedish newspapers, but it is by no means extensive or in-depth. This suggests that the proper course of action is to mention Shelby at Ladonia (micronation) and delete this standalone bio. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is ok by me. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions since nom, I think it would be a detriment to the Ladonia article to merge this article into it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladonia (micronation) with history intact to enable the merger of sourced information. The sources are marginal for a BLP, but there's no need for actual deletion when her coverage is as part of a more clearly notable topic. In particular I would rather see the article kept rather than deleted if those are the only two options, but view a redirect with a partial merger as the best ultimate solution. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladonia (micronation). This is a living subject and the article has very little in the way of reliable sources or direct detailing. I would prefer the page is deleted for BLP reasons, but can live with redirect as an alternative. BusterD (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Gravity

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Couldn't really find reliable sources, including on Newspapers.com and British Newspaper Archives. Based on the page creator's username, and the fact that the article was created the same year the band started, this seems like a case of a COI/PR-written article of a non-notable group. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. Whisperjanes (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fermax

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

No references, written like an ad, nothing I could find online aside from Fermax's product profiles and other non-WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seems fine Jimrobbo2 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant advertisement which cites no sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puri Oil (Mills)

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

Sources are press releases, based on press releases, or defunct. Somewhat advertorial as well. TLA (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like WP:Promotion Jothefiredragon (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMO with fancy buzzwords inserted (SME! The mustard specialist!), with little to no coverage outside of funding announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Technology Management

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

Sources include a press release, and WP:SELFPUB content. TLA (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Companies, Technology, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An excerpt: "The company has a team of experienced professionals who are experts in a wide range of IT disciplines. NTMI is committed to providing its clients with the highest quality of service and delivering innovative solutions that meet their business needs." Wow, you don't say. This really doesn't look great. I couldn't find any reffies. jp×g 🗯️ 21:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dennis Specialist Vehicles#1977–2000. Viable ATD, but no consensus to merge info Star Mississippi 02:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis R series

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

Lacks general coverage with independent sources to be considered a topic for an article. WP:GNG NHPluto (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mentions of this particular bus, only this [119]. Nothing we can use to write an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a short sentence at Dennis Specialist Vehicles#1977–2000. Given that some other of their vehicles are notable this is a plausible search term, and the content would enhance the list at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 00:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.. Star Mississippi 02:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.

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

Clearly WP:PROMO. Notability is questionable as the sources are press releases / announcements / WP:ROUTINE. Couldn't find anything online, so I doubt this meets WP:GNG. Regardless, WP:TNT. TLA (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Computing, Software, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Network_Automation,_Inc._v._Advanced_Systems_Concepts,_Inc. IgelRM (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per above. Looks like a good idea for time being. Article can be restored at any time, when new sources are found. Pavlor (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moving to draft per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hutchens

AfDs for this article:

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

Ranges from press releases, "community contributor"s, and other non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Aside from possible WP:UPE, idependent/reliable sources here only mention Bill Hutchens per WP:ROUTINE. TLA (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, United Kingdom, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that he was in many films that have articles and references suggest that it should be kept. Bduke (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the criteria in WP:NACTOR he needs to have some leading roles, not any roles. All these roles could have been non-leading. I will see if I can do some further research in this and post a vote later. Royal88888 (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. after a review of his credits, I do not think he meets WP:NACTOR, but he meets WP:BASIC. In particular, these 2 articles here would work towards notability: Shokya.com and newexpressnews.com. Royal88888 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft; the article indicates that he was "on the set" of a 2023 production, and had another in post-production, apparently, since 2019. If new coverage arises on the subject's involvement with either of these, the article can be submitted to restoration to mainspace. BD2412 T 01:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refbombed spam lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Probable UPE with a good chance of socking. Two sources mentioned above are rehashes of press releases so lack independence. Just being in films is not enough, needs significant roles. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see evidence of multiple significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft per BD2412. If the actor is on set then perhaps this can worked on in draft. TarnishedPath^talk 13:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Draftify. Has been in multiple films, with a leading role in upcoming film Draft:Joachim and the Apocalypse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Besse

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

WP:BIO1E -- person is notable for only this one event, no significant coverage aside from this HalJor (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. HalJor (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: vaguely bibliographical, reads like a Linkedin career summary. Nothing found for this individual, could be redirected to the Glassdoor article I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kisna Diamond Jewellery

AfDs for this article:

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

All I'm seeing are press releases and trade pubs that don't meet WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: – this was previously speedy deleted for blatant advertising. TLA (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like promotional article with many sources showing 404 errors and others might consider unreliable. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability.RangersRus (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They opened a store in Rajput and the like, are about all I find for the company. Sourcing used now in the article is trade magazines/websites, not an acceptable source. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP Devokewater|(tαlk) 11:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Denning

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

WP:PROMO and no proper WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree this is likely Promo created. Article creator BeekeeperRed is a sock of TardyMarmot. Several of TardyMarmot;s articles are tagged for "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments". — Maile (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing I find is press releases and non-RS. What's used now in the article is of a similar quality. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelyn

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

Cornelyn is an house built around 1860 (albeit with some very modern holiday lets) sitting in its own grounds. It is neither a village nor a hamlet. The house itself is recorded by Coflein but is not a listed building. It appears to have zero notability and fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike in the case of Castellior, I find no indication that this location has any archeological significance. It's possible the Massey family, who I assume built the estate, is notable (see e.g. [120], [121]), but I don't see enough sources to indicate that the estate or manor is independently notable. Jfire (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's definitely Cornelyn Manor, not an "area". I found the Massey sisters, too. And some advertising blurb about management training courses in the 1980s. But there's really scant information about this place or the Masseys (Edith, Gwenddolen, or William) beyond that they were born, lived here, and died. Uncle G (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Femmes fantastiques

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, France, and Canada. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found a source about it [122], however I agree it is very unclear if it meets notability. Perhaps its best merge the article to the author's article. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found no reviews in English, French or German. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also found no reviews. The source found by Homerethegreat is the publisher's site, so not independent. The author does not have an article, so merge and/or redirect is not viable. Jfire (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Konstantinou (footballer, born 2005)

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

Subject appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically WP:NBIO and WP:SPORTSPERSON; subject does not appear to be the subject of any significant coverage in reliable references. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Possible redirect targets are 2023–24 Anorthosis Famagusta FC season, and ideally 2022–23 Anorthosis Famagusta F.C. season which is the season he made his debut - but this is a bad season article where no players are mentioned. Geschichte (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently fails WP:GNG and with no clear indication that that will change soon. I'm not convinced that any of the above ATDs would help. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrianos Juliou

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

Subject appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically WP:NBIO and WP:SPORTSPERSON; subject does not appear to be the subject of any significant coverage in reliable references. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are database records and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pista House

AfDs for this article:

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

Lots of routine coverage but mostly churnalism. Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete – some sources are WP:SELFPUB. Others seem to be just short of WP:SIGCOV of the company. TLA (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's of independent credible news sources wrote extensively about Pisa House. So this does not qualify for deletion. Check citations first Rasalghul1711 (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the page I am going to assume you did a deeper dive into sourcing so if you can show me which ones meet WP:ORGCRIT I will have another look and withdraw the nomination should they meet the criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41

1. Deccan Chronicle - Well established newspaper in India

2. Indian Council of Agricultural Research - An Indian government body.

3. The Hans India - English daily read widely in Telugu states.

4. Also Pista House's Haleem has received the GI tag by the Indian government which makes it a notable establishment.

5. Indulge Express - A subsidiary of the New Indian Express which happens to one of the biggest media conglomerate in India; wrote an entire article dedicated to the restaurant and it's owner

So in a nutshell, this is a article for a notable establishment and it's citations helps the article meet WP:ORGCRIT

' Rasalghul1711 (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the references. First, let me point out that it is not necessarily the quality of the publication, but the quality of the reference itself. So, something like the The Hans India reference may be from a reliable publication, but it is marked as being from Hans News Service which indicates churnalism or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The only reference out of those you listed which appear to meet WP:ORGCRIT would be the Deccan Chronicle; however, the author of that piece appears to be all over the board with what they write about so not sure how other Wikipedians reviewing that reference would take it. So, assuming the Deccan Chronicle does meet ORGCRIT, that would be only a single source. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the GI of the restaurant given by the government? Surely that does count as reliable. Rasalghul1711 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory findings aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete based on the source discussion above. Nothing found for notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Odes881029-1] Paine, Judy (October 29, 1988). "New station on air". The Odessa American. Odessa, Texas. p. 17A. Retrieved January 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

[1]