Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 21	October 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gifted Students' School (Iraq)

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

Unreferenced. Can't find anything online. Everything here is just someone's opinion. Nswix (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Iraq. Nswix (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - this is clearly a for-profit education company and per NSCHOOL, it would need to meet NCORP, which it doesn't and most likely can't. It's either the work of a proud student who was unaware of NOTFACEBOOK, or the company itself. In either case, it's blatantly PROMO. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a government school network, so probably not for-profit. - Indefensible (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs clean up. I believe more sources probably exist though, for example https://www.iraqiwomensleague.com/news_view_5102.html and https://baghdadtoday.news/228330-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%87%D9%88%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AF.html - Indefensible (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lawn (philosopher)

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

Despite multiple publications with good presses, this person does not appear to meet the notability criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. In general, I find these criteria overly stringent, but in this case I cannot even tell what rank or title the subject has at his university.

If other folks think the attention his work got by reviewers (not all positive!) merits his inclusion, I'm happy to be overruled on this. Otherwise more is needed to justify keeping the article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep. Some high cites on GS in a very low cited field. There may be reviews to be found to suport WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. I think there are enough reviews of his books for WP:AUTHOR. But I can find almost nothing else about him beyond the fact that he used to be described as a lecturer at Mary Immaculate College, U. Limerick, and isn't listed by them now. I've stripped out the rest of the article (which wasn't very much) because it had no reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Books seem quite highly cited for philosophy field (220,155,80,61) and reviews found by David Eppstein & the creator seem adequate to pass WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. per Espresso Addict, he just passes WP:NAUTHOR with reviews of multiple books, but only one book as more than a single review so its an edge case. --hroest 20:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book reviews are fine, AUTHOR is a weak keep. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Nomination is in defiance of WP:NEXIST. SNOW also applies! gidonb (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gidonb,

Would you ever consider weighing in on the guidelines at WP:NACADEMIC? They are clearly written to exclude academics who do not meet a much higher threshold of notability than Dr. Lawn. Editors there might pay attention to someone with your experience.

I've seen these criteria used to exclude academics with considerably more impressive CVs just because they are not formally distinguished and do not occupy a named chair—even though that is usually besides the point for full professors at major research universities, who can be presumed to be among the top scholars in their fields.

My own view, even more lenient, is that anyone important enough to be cited as an expert in the body of another article should be seriously considered as deserving at least a stub entry. That way curious readers can get a little more context without necessarily having to leave Wikipedia.

In any event, I only nominated this article for deletion because I understood that to be my responsibility as part of the new page patrol (to which I myself am new). For as I wrote above, I think the main problem in this instance is with the policy guidelines on the notability of academics, not the quality of Dr. Lawn's work. Happy to be overruled in this nomination!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have doubts about your nomination, you can withdraw it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

The result here seems to be clear without further action on my part. I'm taking it as an occasion to address what I take to be the underlying issue, which is the overly exclusionary notability criteria.

I'd encourage anyone interested to weigh in at Wikipedia talk: Notability (academics) #proposal for modification of guidelines.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Scholar-search convinces me that it is best left in, though I understand the nominator's doubts. Suitskvarts (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J Maine

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

Non-notable. The page only cites one secondary source and I could find only a single other one on Google. Loytra (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Radio, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC with no viable third-party coverage. Any variation of a search of his name turns up next to no results. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only sources I was able to find include interviews (Vibe and VoyageLA) and brief mentions about his TikTok account (Variety and Nylon). Mbdfar (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babar Ahmed (director)

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

He doesn't have any significant reliable coverage. The coverage that exists is mostly very minor. He isn't notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Dravoon (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Pakistan, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Director of at least two notable films that have received substantial coverage, Amka and the Three Golden Rules and Royal Kill (reviewed in the Washington Post, among other things), he is therefore notable according to Wikipedia:NDIRECTOR: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)"-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. pass in WP:DIRECTOR criteria Worldiswide (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Clark

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of article deleted via consensus in September 2022. Coverage continues to lack significance with only additional sources being more WP:ROUTINE news reports of low-level racing competition. Fails WP:NOT as a database entry. Proposing deletion + creation protection. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Canada. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing any evidence of non-WP:ROUTINE coverage. Correct me if I'm wrong. WP:BLP of a sportsperson who has only competed in minor series that is therefore more liable to have unchecked vandalism added without timely reversion. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Clark is a USF Juniors champion and progressing through the Road to Indy ladder. Therefore he has a lot of Wikipedia:POTENTIAL and his article should be kept as a draft. Formula Downforce (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to this (this was my !vote in AfD No. 1), but I would still request salting and/or a requirement that the draft go through AfC before returning to mainspace. We also have to note the reply by Agtx to my !vote in that discussion, which is that articles typical are sent to draft for quality reasons, which I ultimately had no reply to. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure drafting would do much, this individual is still a student [1] until at least 2026, it would be a while before the career wins happen. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still TOOSOON, in the last year, not much more can be found than was mentioned in the last AfD [2], some coverage but not much. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - It may fail WP:NOT at the moment, however it also qualifies as having WP:POTENTIAL as Clark may be a more significant topic in the future as he a USF Juniors champion and has won races at the USF2000 level. SteeledDock541 (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Paczkowski

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

I believe Paczkowski fails to meet WP:NJOURNALIST. I tried to see if the subject met WP:GNG during my WP:BEFORE, but it's hard to find WP:RS coverage for the critical late-2000's period and earlier.
Besides that, I found one article about him leaving Buzzfeed News (besides Forbes itself).
The Forbes article would be pretty good at demonstrating The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors part of NJOURNALIST, but it's from his employer. Another good source in that same type would be [3], but it has the same issues.

I just don't think the sources are there, but I am happy to be proven wrong. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Technology, and California. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tech reporter, plenty of articles by him, nothing about him. No sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree. Add in unsourced quotes and other puffery about him and article basically adds up to a promotional piece. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Hina

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

Hina spent his career in the lower levels of Albanian football and shows no indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. My searches in Albanian sources yielded News Sport, which is a brief announcement of his release (along with a few other players) from KF Këlcyra, which was playing at a very low level as this part of his career was not even recorded on Soccerway. Balkan Web mentions him in a news story about a protest following his arrest (again, along with other players). He is not mentioned in any detail in this story and I can't find any news story that addresses him in detail, either for his career as a footballer or as a result of his arrest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 22 October 2023 (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)} 18:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable enough. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meowth's Party

AfDs for this article:

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

Found nothing from my WP:BEFORE; article relies on mentions User:2605:B40:1303:900:A0E1:7DCB:3582:9C6F (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted per request of IP by UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Anime and manga. UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's this dedicated IGN source is currently in the article but im not finding much else yet. This Nintendo World Report source was cited in the first AFD but that it doesn't say that much and kind of feels more like a collection of notes on "what will Pokemon look like on Gamecube" than significant coverage on the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The song (which appears to be the real topic of the article) charted nationally on Oricon for 13 weeks, which suggests this passes WP:NSINGLE. A WP:BEFORE performed in Japanese should always consider Oricon when applicable. As usual, most media coverage about Japanese music for the 1990s has always been offline. However, I think information on the song could be merged directly to Meowth if necessary. Dekimasuよ! 01:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SIGCOV in here, here/here, and here. This mention in EGM seals the deal for me that it's notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. It meets WP:GNG and NSINGLE, so that pretty much seals the deal for me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I copied the phrase seals the deal for me from zx. That's awkward. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge the aforementioned IGN article is really good. Other than that, what ZX provided is pretty much partial coverage or routine mentions. Otherwise this could be merged to Meowth. Conyo14 (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I generally consider IGN a reasonably reliable source, and they wrote about this song twice. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.ign.com/articles/2000/08/24/meowths-party-impressions-and-shots https://screenrant.com/pokemon-canceled-games-fans-unknown-unaware/#meowth-s-party https://gaming.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/cancelled-canon-10-cancelled-pokmon-games/86669972/ Dream Focus 18:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Third source is unreliable: [4]. Though it's still likely to be kept. Conyo14 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laspur

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

Landform with no evidence of notability. Almost entirely unsourced since its creation in 2014, now only being maintained by sockpuppets. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reverting the most recent sock addition, I have discovered that the article is supposed to be about a town, which presumptively meets WP:GNG. I recommend using WP:ECP to prevent socks from editing the page. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. samee converse 18:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LaundryPizza03. I've edited this article; one of the sources is a permanent dead link, but the other actually supports some of the content in the page. The sockpuppetry is certainly tedious in the extreme, but not a valid reason for deletion; the protection applied by Daniel Case should help to limit that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did some looking and found an archived link by the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB), Government of Pakistan that still works and replaces the 'permanent dead link' mentioned above. I have already added this link to this article. Since it's an archived link, hopefully it won't go dead on us...Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though not altogether convinced Laspur is the name of the town — the sources in the article only confirm it's a council area. Think the village/town is called Sor Laspur, with Laspur being the name of a valley and river as well as the council. Still, the article could cover all these and Sor Laspur appears to be a legally recognised populated place under WP:GEOLAND.

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Radel

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

not a notable academic per WP:NPROF, not high number of publication, no high impact/citation, no prestigious awards, not in the news, all the sources are primary with no in-depth coverage from reliable sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. References 6–12 (seven of them!) are all to the same publication in various languages. That looks like padding to me. It would be sufficient to keep [6] and mention that other versions exist. Athel cb (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to be honest, I should have PROD the article rather than using XFD given how obvious this one is, but here we are FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NPROF, his h-index score on Google Scholar is 4, and is 0 on Scopus; his position is not a named chair or distinguished professorship, no other indication of rank. Fails GNG also. Netherzone (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete, very low h-index score, indicaiton of non-notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Netherzone. Mooonswimmer 17:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. h-index of only 4, nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. The page reads rather promotional. Nsk92 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One paper with 160 citations in GS, but not seeing anything else of note. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see evidence of passing any WP:PROF criterion. I've seen some editors argue that all German full professors in established full-professor positions are notable under #C3 but I don't subscribe to that expansive philosophy. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annalynn

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

The TouchArcade review is only two paragraphs, VideoChums has low requirements for contributors and their review is only one paragraph. Sources used in the article: The Game*Spark piece is an interview with the developer and thus not independent. Nintendo Everything is listed as unreliable in WP:GAMESOURCES. QuietCicada (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant game, doesn't meet requirements. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game itself looks cool, unfortunately this is one of those examples where interesting and notable are two different things. The article rests on very weak coverage, most of which is unreliable or primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: metacritic only has two reviews, the one given and this one [5], which I don't think is a RS. The IGN link is simply a video of the trailer. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. I like this game, but there's just not enough to it to establish notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party reception nor reviews of the game to be found. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jebel el Gharbi

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

There's not mountain or peak by this name, the creator must have mistranslated the cited page which talks about Mount Lebanon (in arabic سلسلة جبال لبنان الغربية; Western Mount Lebanon range). I am in the middle of listing major Lebanese mountains. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A peak by the same name seems to exist in Libya, but not in Lebanon. Mooonswimmer 16:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Lang

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently already deleted at some point in the past (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alyssa_Lang), this individual still isn't notable, which was the original reason for deletion. GraziePrego (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Sports, and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Our page might not be citing enough independent in-depth secondary source material to establish notability, but I'm a bit skeptical that such material doesn't exist, given how much professional TV airtime the subject has. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep a bit of decent coverage in local media [6], [7], [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been mostly rewritten using sourcing from The State, Saturday Down South, The Clarion-Ledger, and AL.com (including those mentioned by Oaktree b). Best, Bridget (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the significant media coverage available on her career that is now cited in the article. Bridget (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily has three sources that pass WP:BASIC. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the expansion since nomination shows the article passes WP:BASIC. Skynxnex (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Saini. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saini people

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

This list has remained contentious due to persistent WP:BLP violation. There are not more names in list and few names which are present here also need quote for verification. I propose this list to be deleted and few names of the community members that exists here can be added below Saini article as that article is also short. Admantine123 (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Lists. Admantine123 (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Ethnic groups. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any verified material to a new "Notable people" section in the Saini article. The latter article is short and a standalone list is not really warranted. Mooonswimmer 17:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed by Mooonswimmer. This does not pass WP:NLIST under either notability or usefulness. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Insufficient content to make a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Skynxnex (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Zaman

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

Doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER. Most of the references are borderline WP:REFBOMBING which doesn't prove notability or support the text; for instance, "He is well known for directing the Punjabi comedy film Carry On Jatta 3." is only semi-supported by the seventh reference, which isn't an independent source. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 09:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Pakistan. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 09:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present, none of the RSes provide significant coverage, and many of the sources are unreliable. Two sources provide more significant coverage, but I question their reliability. I've googled Zaman and didn't come across any better sources, but there may be some in Punjabi. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I want to express my opinion This user User:Significa liberdade seems to have some deep conflict and problem with this article. He tampered with this page twice before so I reverted him I also said that removing all references to a page is equivalent to destroying it. Even after stopping a user once, he was repeatedly and causing vandalism. I have been watching for a long time that this user User:Significa liberdade fighting a personal battle As an editor of Wikipedia, I refuse to accept its opinions. And I have a request to any Wikipedia administrator to check all its edit He is busy getting many articles deleted and fighting his personal battles. Zimidar (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am on New Page Patrol and have "tampered" with the article to help it meet Wikipedia's standards. I'm happy to have any administrator review my actions, though. (she/her, by the way) Significa liberdade (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep Nasir Zaman is considered as one of the best and famous Director, producer of Pakistan, Even after reaching the heights of fame, he still meets common people as if he is not a popular star. He has got coverage in many Indian news. He announced his career in 2021 And also has many of his projects, upcoming.The Indian Express Times Of India Outlook India Universal Cinemas CinemaQatar dajiworld Still there has been a of Indian and and Pakistani News Site coverage about him, Mostly you will see names associated with other actresses in their coverage.ZeeFilm News18 FreePressJournal ianLive Medeberyaa Because in every project he works together with the entire team as a director, producer or actor. Famous Indian actor Aamir Khan took his his name during the movie promotion of Carry On Jatta 3. and praised his work. I find it difficult to assess the reliability of Pakistani sources and we don't appear to have a WP:RSN page for the country. However, there does appear to be in-depth coverage in sources which I assess as probably reliable, covering multiple events / aspects of this WP:BLP. Keep, monitor for neutrality and overdetail. Zimidar (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the sources provided above provide significant coverage of Nasir Zaman. Significa liberdade (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the plethora of sources being thrown around, they all appear to either grossly fail WP:SIGCOV or act as a functional database entry showing actor, director, and producer credits for a film - neither of which support notability. As an example, the FreePressJournal source mentions Zaman a single time to credit him for directing the film Maujaan Hi Maujaan. The remainder of the article is an interview with an actor. I cannot seem to find anything online searching myself, but as Significa liberdade commented, it's possible sources may exist in another language. —Sirdog (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above, doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER. Most of the references are film reviews not specifically about the subject, cinema showing times (I'm not sure I've seen that before) or are primary sources. I think there was one (?) secondary source. One of the links was so riddled with spam my phone sent me a dangerous link warning. For now, the subject isn't notable. Knitsey (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muaid Moaafa

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

Despite playing 4 minutes of football back in 2018, I'm not seeing anything even close to WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC from the sources provided or from my own searches. Twitter is not reliable or independent and database sources do not confer notability, so that rules out all of the references bar Shorouk News and Akhbaar24, both of which contain minimal information on the player and are referenced to Twitter, which is not reliable or independent. The only news story that I could find that wasn't referenced to Twitter was Ar Riyadiyah, which is just a photo of him training from home, with two sentences confirming what the image shows. No significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV found, fails BASIC and ANYBIO. Timothytyy (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The consensus here is to Keep this article but, as was said in the discussion, some of the Keeps were weak. But new sources were brought into the discussion. Unfortunately, we didn't see further evaluation of them which would have made this a more solid consensus. Believe it or not, editors and admins don't relist a deletion discussion until they can carry out their own opinion of what happens but because consensus, based on the policy arguments provided, is not clear and could be supported should the closure be taken to Deletion review. Closers put their name on a closure and need to be able to defend it if challenged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-aging trance

AfDs for this article:

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

Neologism (WP:NEO), little coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most mentions are by the person who coined it (see Google Scholar and Google News). The page was subject to AfD in 2010 with result merged. It was recreated in 2022 in a substantially expanded form so doesn't qualify for WP:G4. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The term was coined in 2007 at the latest, and has since been used in various scientific articles as well as prominent and independent media outlets, including The Guardian, BBC, Racine Journal Times, openDemocracy and Lifespan Extension Advocacy Foundation (see sources and literature cited in the article). It was even mentioned in an article by Deutschlandfunk, a German radio channel: https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/die-abschaffung-des-alters-102.html. The explained phenomenon, although not directly mentioned, has also been the subject of many scientific studies; see reception section. With regard to that, I'd contest that the term is still a neologism and that the phenomenon has experienced too little coverage by reliable scientific and media sources to be notable. Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please include links to relevant reliable sources directly here. I am convinced that The Guardian is a reliable source. What I'm not convinced of is that the Guardian has significant independent coverage of the concept of "pro-aging trance". I've glanced through sources and literature cited in the article and didn't find significant coverage otherwise I wouldn't have nominated.

This Guardian source is in fact an advertorial article written by Aubrey de Grey, hence non-independent and non-reliable.[9]. The second Guardian source mentions the term exactly once in a quote directly attributed to de Grey It is a difficult job because he considers the world to be in a “pro-ageing trance”, happy to accept that ageing is unavoidable, when the reality is that it’s simply a “medical problem” that science can solve.[10]. This is not significant independent coverage either. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more sources to the article. Anyway, I agree with Maxeto0910: there are quite a few reputable authors using the term "pro-aging trance" - e.g. Britt Wray, Kira Peikoff, Dylan Love, Zoë Corbyn and Mark Schweda (all of whom are quoted in the article), plus explanations of the term are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Rejuvenation Research, Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology and Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, plus it is cited in the scientific literature (see, for example, the works of Benjamin Ross and Lucinda Campbell). The fact that most mentions are by the person who coined the term is not surprising: it is mostly being used by anti-aging proponents to describe society's allegedly irrational attitude toward aging, and the anti-aging movement is (albeit ever-growing) still small. However, this is not sufficient reason to delete this article; I think the scientific discussion of the topic and the media coverage that the term has received should be enough to keep it. There are a variety of other suggested phenomena which have also not yet obtained wide scientific attention and still have their own article. Examples include Stockholm syndrome or, probably even more importantly, Bullerby Syndrome. Just like pro-aging trance, these phenomena are received within their own field (though not outside) and some reputable media have reported on them. So my conclusion is rather clear: Keep. Aquarius3500 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As context for the closer, @Maxeto0910 and @Aquarius3500 are the two major editors of this article (post first deletion). Maxeto recreated it and Aquarius expanded it. I notified both of them of this AfD in line with policy. AncientWalrus (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AncientWalrus (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AncientWalrus (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's an odd neologism but it does appear to have reputable coverage. GraziePrego (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to state at least one source to back up your statement of reputable coverage? I have not found independent significant coverage in reliable sources so I would very much appreciate if you shared what you found. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What about Should We'Cure'Aging? A Reply to de Grey, Gregor Wolbring, Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1 (1), 2007? Hyperbolick (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Four mentions of the word in an article that has been cited 4 times? Not sure this qualifies as significant coverage of the term. Also this source was already available when the first AfD concluded merge. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- - Price of tea in China. Was it discussed before? Seems not. And "cited 4 times" is of utmost irrelevance. Can you provide citation numbers for everything you've cited as a source somewhere? And are you going to WP:BADGER everybody who disagrees with you here? Hyperbolick (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you consider rewording your reply, in particular the use of "badger" makes me feel attacked. AncientWalrus (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - "If you have been accused of bludgeoning the process, then take a look at the discussion and try to be objective before you reply. If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear." So... Hyperbolick (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1st preference: Delete. 2nd preference: Redirect to Aubrey de Grey. A search on Google scholar of result from 2019 to the present shows that where the expression is used, it is as a way of describing Aubrey de Grey's views. There is no reason for a separate article on it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out by me and others, the term has received coverage from reliable sources (peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses and mainstream newspapers) and the phenomenon described is also subject of scientific discussion (see, for example, Tom Pyszczynski's talk). Yes, it is true that a large proportion of the sources are either from Aubrey de Grey himself, replies to him or about him. However, the same is true for Bullerby Syndrome and Berthold Franke. A search on Google Scholar is not the best yardstick here and should at least not decide everything. Instead, it would be more helpful if you could address my arguments (and the ones of the other proponents). Aquarius3500 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic has received coverage in peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses and mainstream newspapers in the last ten years, I would expect Google scholar and Google news searches to be useful. The article has two citations to The Guardian - but one is to an article by Aubrey de Grey, and the other mentions it as a way of describing Aubrey de Grey's views; it also has a citation to a 2018 article on the BBC that mentions it as a way of describing Aubrey de Grey's views. I did a search on Google News to see what that showed, but as the search only turned up one recognisable link (a Forbes article about Aubrey de Grey), I concluded that Google scholar was more relevant. As for Youtube links proving notability - they don't.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the article's sources and the discussion above, I get the impression that the expression, although obscure, has been used, and not only in direct connection with the person who introduced it. --a3nm (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are tons and tons of people who think it is wrong to try to slow or reverse aging. We encounter all the time people who think you are playing God or you're going to cause overpopulation or other things.

In the United States, people who've been doing outreach for almost 2 decades constantly get huge amounts of pushback from people thinking it's just wrong, and that we are supposed to grow old and die and that growing old and dying is an important part of life and is the only thing that gives life meaning – among other insipid reasons – and that is the pro-aging trance. People who just can't accept that reversing aging is something that can or should be done.

I can link you to an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN of Bryan Johnson, and after Bryan Johnson speaks, there's a whole bunch of panelists who talk about how what he is doing is wrong, and how they are happy to be old and aging and happy that they will die.

As you will also want a source to support a vote to keep, here is an essay by author Arthur Diamond (who should also have an article), which references de Grey in the same way someone discussing the Theory of Relativity would reference Einstein, but also adopts the phrase as valid in itself. This essay was also published in some newspapers. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 16:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Wondering why a discussion with six "keeps" to one "delete" (with some "keeps" backed by sources) would need relisting for "clearer consensus"; seems pretty freakin' clear. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the keep statements gave reasons that are either irrelevant or very weak. So getting a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus makes good sense.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like "clearer consensus" means something different from literally "consensus" then. What doubt is there that this clears the bar as set? Hyperbolick (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, consensus is decided on by considering the reasons given by contributors, not by counting votes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A clearly referenced article with multiple sources over a span of time that is obscure but certainly notable. I, too, wonder why it keeps being relisted when the consensus is so obviously keep. It certainly appears that the editors are going to keep relisting it until there's an excuse to delete it, which is not appropriate. Close and keep. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here. Editors interested in a Merge can start that process after this AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adidas Copa Mundial

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

1) Per WP:NOTADVERT this at the very least needs WP:TNT 2) Fails WP:GNG. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Sports, and Football. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a rather iconic football boot amongst many, there are multiple reviews online about the boots such as ESPNs example, which in turn is in-depth coverage. There are some news articles, such as [11] about possible discontinuation of the boot. However they continue to update it at times [12]. There are multiple sources online, @GiantSnowman: If you continue to post the same thing over and over again of no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. I will be more than happy to report this to ANI, as at times this is rather like how many have be barred from AfD. Simply voting delete or keep with lack of explanation is tiresome. Especially for an article such as this, when there are huge amount of sources online for this icon boot. Govvy (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain. Feel free to take to ANI. As I have explained elsewhere, and as others agreed with me, your respectfully shitty attitude in dealing with people who you disagree with at AFD will not win people around to your way of thinking. Giant Snowman 17:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first citation, the author runs a blog which sells the products he reviews. While it may be published by ESPN, there is a clear COI there given that ESPN are publishing his websites name in connection with the review. Your second citation, I couldn't find any editorial staff or policies for that website. TarnishedPath^talk 03:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or delete ALL brand name articles. Please see Category:Adidas, and Wikipedia:Brands. The other Adidas are no more, nor any less, advertising than this one. And it's not isolated to one brand. ~~Don't cherry-pick only select Adidias articles to delete.~~ — Maile (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66, I'm not cherry picking Adidas. Refer to the following other football boots that I nominated:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Hypervenom - Deleted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Mercurial Vapor - Deleted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Tiempo - Redirected

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Total 90 - Redirected

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Phantom Luna - Deleted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike CTR360 Maestri - Currently relisted TarnishedPath^talk 01:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I struck through my comment about cherry picking. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66, no worries. Enjoy your day or night. TarnishedPath^talk 02:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Govvy: I find nothing objectionable about @GiantSnowman:’s comment. His comment about pinging is a reasonable alternative to following multiple AfDs, comment-by-comment, after leaving his own comment. I suspect an ANI discussion would ultimately reach the same conclusion, perhaps after some contentious, gratuitous drive-by comments from the peanut gallery. Either or both or neither of you might get sanctioned - it’s a crap shoot. ANI is not worth it, trust me.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had edited the article to remove unreliable sources, however an editor has seen fit to restore the unreliable sources because they think it appropriate to include blogs, websites with no locatable editorial policies and sources which don't back up the claims made in articles because "they are not black listed". After removal of unreliable sources there were only two sources left in the article. One of the sources was about California banning kangaroo skinned boots and barely mentions the product. The other is about the product being offered in white. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Adidas Copa Mundial, Adidas Nemeziz, Adidas Predator, and AdiPure into single article on Adidas football boots, eliminating everything that is either unsourced or sourced to non-independent sources (which is quite a bit of it). BD2412 T 01:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An even split between keep, merge, and delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pocket Monsters RéBURST chapters

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

This article consists solely of a list of chapters in Pocket Monsters RéBURST, which was redirected without merge to List of Pokémon manga#Manga not released in English following this AfD in April 2023 (and is currently only mentioned in a single sentence). The article is sourced only to the manga's publisher and has no notability as a stand-alone list. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 07:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 07:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 07:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly, if the anime isn't notable enough for an article, as decided by an AfD, neither is a list of its episodes. Bensci54 (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. But maybe one day this will be a notable series, so SOFTDELETE is ok. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I just want to check, is List of Pokémon manga#Manga not released in English being proposed as a redirect target article? Or is there another article that is more appropriate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't feel that this one needs to be redirected, being that it is a list article which seems an unlikely search term. Bensci54 (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The target article doesn't contain any information about the manga chapters. Redirecting in this case is inappropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Border Model

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

Non-notable manufacturer, doesn't meet WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search in English and (machine translated) Chinese turned up only this product review from what looks like a RS. The rest are all adverts from model sellers, and a few blogs. Article currently has only one primary source from the company, plus two from sellers.

I'm also nominating the following related page because it's simply a list of some of their products, with no indication of how they're notable by WP:GNG. This article was actually created first, and proposed for deletion on the grounds of notability and about products for which there was no company article. Border Model was then created by same editor, and proposed deletion contested without comment. It's sourced by a company link, a blog, and a seller link.

Wikishovel (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Wikishovel (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - No evidence of importance shown, let alone notability. Bensci54 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. List of Border Model product lines was PROD'd so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's absolutely no indication of notability. DCsansei (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Mooonswimmer 17:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayotunde Bally

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

Non-notable Nigerian technology executive. Most sources are just passing mention. This link from Nigerian Tribune seems to be a press release. PS: Article was previously moved to draftspace by AirshipJungle but was moved back to mainspace by creator. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there's no indication of notability, everything here seems to simply be self-sourced or short mentions. DCsansei (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This [13] is about the best, but it's the person talking about why they joined the company. Gnews only has six hits total, all about the same as this one. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

土城

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

English Wikipedia pages should not use Chinese characters in their title per WP:NCZH. Also, this is a duplicate of Tucheng (disambiguation), which is more extensive. SilverStar54 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and China. SilverStar54 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: decided to create a broader discussion for deleting all pages in this category. SilverStar54 (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said this in another AfD recently, but Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles (383) is not a death sentence. Quoting the category page: The following disambiguation pages contain Chinese characters in their titles. They serve to disambiguate articles subjects that may be referred to by the same name when written in different Chinese character sets such as Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, Kanji, Hanja, Chữ Nôm and Sawndip.
There's nothing in WP:NCZH that says dabpages can't use Chinese characters in their titles, and indeed it is standard practice when there are different pronunciations based on what language is using the characters. If Toseong station is deleted, you'd have a valid rationale here. Folly Mox (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I didn't know that. I guess there's no real harm in these pages existing, the use-case just feels baffling. (The mind wanders: Do people really use these? How often do English texts include Chinese characters without at least a transliteration? Wouldn't someone be able to use Google Translate to get the appropriate transliteration for the language they're looking at? Are there really situations where someone who knows how to type Chinese characters isn't able to guess from the context whether they're looking at Kanji, Hanja, or Hanzi?)

Philosophical ponderings aside, it sounds like this is settled policy so I'll withdraw my request. SilverStar54 (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly agree with you about what the actual use cases are. I'm thinking it's people who have some website open they can't read, don't know about or predate google translate, and copypaste into the Wikipedia search bar. Considering how many of these have been popping up at AfD recently, it might be time to have a fresh conversation about whether or not this category should be a "death sentence", to borrow my language from above. I'm philosophically neutral on whether this should be a valid type of dabpage, but I'm of the mind that they should either all stay or all go.
Apologies if I came off a bit cross in my initial comment. I'm sure it was feelings about something else. Folly Mox (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I'll start AfD for this group of articles. SilverStar54 (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/樂天 was overturned at WP:DRV, and two other recent Chinese-character DAB AfD's were closed as keep. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment This article had a duplicate AfD tag. Never seen that before. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterritorial crossroad

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

Deprodded by Espresso Addict (talk · contribs) without improvement; unsourced since creation in 2003 and tagged as such since 2009. Concern, by Chidgk1 (talk · contribs) was: Most of the sources I found were likely copied from this article –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Geography. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename. I'm not sure about the words in the title but the concept seems sound. For example there are lots of sources talking about the concept in this part of the world: Zangezur corridor also historical examples such as Berlinka. I might be missing some nuance from the nom so am open to changing my !vote. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No such term as far as I can find. Half the definition ("a strip of land that formally belongs to neither country") ~~seems~~ is absurd and does not apply to any of the examples listed. The other half ("or with other special arrangements") is so vague as to be useless. Part of this is already covered in Enclave and exclave#Unusual cross-border transport channels. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything regarding the term, barring sources that more than likely copied from this article, as mentioned by Chidgk1 (talk · contribs). Mooonswimmer 16:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trance Fury

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Google search shows no reliable secondary coverage, and the only source in this article seems unreliable. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and likely written for money by BheekAam along with other articles. If someone should turn up refs, please ping me.

See also these articles by the same editor:

Buy one, get two free!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also this conversation about an earlier deletion:

We appear to have an entitled, persistent self-promoter. Consider salting after deletion -- this will be the third deletion.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI user accounts that have edited this material over time:

TFRRecords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BheekAam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- I think BheekAam is just editing these and other articles for hire. I suspect at least the 2 other editors with related usernames have a closer connection --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fury88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Marvelman420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cites this article at the bottom of his Indiegogo appeal:

indiegogo.com/projects/north-american-oscillation-support-trance-music# (Indiegogo is a blacklisted domain here.)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, Television, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This subject can probably meet WP:MUSICBIO#10. The Weather Channel was huge for many years in the USA, tens of millions of people would have heard this individual's music if the claim in the lead holds. However, we need reliable and independent sourcing of that claim for a keep, and indeed the article as it stands is a problem so a delete is not a huge loss. —siro χ o 07:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only source cited describes itself as "a professional media and marketing agency with over 10 years of experience and 24 years of service. We are the most reliable and true source of news related to music, entertainment, and art." This does not sound to me like a neutral source. Also, there isn't even a byline—almost always a bad sign.

Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NO hits in Gnews, Gsearch is soundcloud, social media then into the void. Delete for lack of any sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of sourcing, non-neutral, and promotional content. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 19:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional in tone, RS issues and no indication of notability--VViking_TalkEdits 14:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Nuñez

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG With signicant coverage already on page, this and this.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although more local to Belize, I feel it just scrapes by on basic GNG for whats out there. That first citation just puts it for weak keep for me. Govvy (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly significant figure in Belizean football and definitely as offline sources as well as good ones already there. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now at No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lengthy career in Belizean football, multiple appearances in international matches, praised by Belize's largest newspaper, which describes him as a "a football legend". Mooonswimmer 16:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep First Amandala link goes over his 20 yr career (noted a few !votes above this one), rest are highlights, seems notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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