Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 05	October 07 >

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 delete‎. This is a BLP and sourcing is insufficient. If folks think a redirect to EcoLatinos is helpful, that can be done editorially. Star Mississippi 00:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Stemmle

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. The references are absolutely atrocious. scope_creep^Talk 22:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Environment, and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and help improve. I tend to disagree with the above rather harsh expression of the sources. The article has been created during the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Wikipedia Edit-a-thon: Women in Environmental Justice today. None of us landed on our feet with perfect knowledge and sourcing when we started. This is the user's first time ever trying to create a Wikipedia article. It would be more helpful to Wikipedia if editors would help clean this up a little. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would helpful to Wikipedia if was deleted. Where it is created isn't relevant. It hasn't a secondary for a WP:BLP, never mind a full WP:PRIMARY source, like for example a long interview. Instead it is passing mentions and profiles. It is junk. WP:BLP states: "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". WP:BIO defines three criteria for notability. This article fails all of them. It is a very poor choice for a keep !vote due to a edit-a-thon scope_creep^Talk 23:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That argument you have made isn't a criteria for evaluation of notability. Instead it seems to be an appeal to emotion as opposed the corect criteria, which is a rational examination of it quality and construction and how it relates to notabilty policy. That is in mainspace article, so it will evaluated as a mainspace article. I'll will have a look at the sources. scope_creep^Talk 22:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to vote draftify because I strongly agree with your point about supporting new editors, but unfortunately, there don't seem to be RSes. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the sources demonstrate notability, though some more would be great. The article needs expansion but the sources about her show that she passes GNG. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could she be a section of an "EcoLatinos" article, as her organisation seems more notable ? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)7[reply]
Comment Its states in WP:BLP that "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". Lets look at the sources:

Ref 1 [1] This is a 6 line profile in a blog. It is not significant source. It is a WP:SPS non-rs source.

Ref 2 [2] This is a single word mention. It is not significant source.

Ref 3 [3] This a 4-line profile. Its another WP:SPS source. It is not significant.

Ref 4 [4] This doesn't mention her at all.

Ref 5 [5] This is PR, and while it is covering here organisation, it is PR. It is written as a PR piece. It is plain as day.

There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source in this list. A WP:BEFORE was done and there was no signifcant coverage there either. scope_creep^Talk 06:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also conducted a search and found no articles that establish notability; specifically, while Stemmle is mentioned in several sources, there is nothing that contains significant coverage about the subject. I agree with Scope_creep's source review after reviewing the sources myself. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BASIC. Sadly there just't isn't enough sourcing on the subject to pass GNG. I was able to locate two newspaper articles where she was mentioned in passing and a third where she was interviewed briefly as the Latino liaison for Prince George's County State Attorney's Office to comment on a new Maryland bill on immigration enforcement in 2003. None of the articles were about her, and wouldn't constitute "in-depth coverage". The source analysis above is also persuasive.4meter4 (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Commendable community leadership does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 00:23, 14 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. Star Mississippi 21:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffes? Giraffes!

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

Fails WP:N/WP:BAND. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the usual unreliable sources: social media, streaming/purchase services, forums/Reddit, and plenty of amateur music sites—but I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. (It's a shame because I quite like the band. Unfortunately, my approval is not as yet criteria for notability.) Woodroar (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self-promotional twadded, self-released music. They can call us back when the world has noticed them, but so far, this is just north of WP:NFT. Ravenswing 23:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that the band was apparently named after a children's book, which makes their goofy name even tougher to search for. I managed to find some evidence that they have a cult following and some respect among other math rock geeks: [6], [7], [8], and I found one reliable album review: [9]. So it's not as dire as the previous commenters imply, but despite a lengthy career I think their media notice is too spotty and inconsistent for the WP:SIGCOV standard, and there's not much reliable from which to build an encyclopedic article. Dig those wacky song titles though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Don't see where to redirect to. Suitskvarts (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interestingly this is a book title. There is no SIGCOV for this band. Just a few interviews. Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 13 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Bohner

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

1. I can only find one reliable source to establish the notability of the subject of this article, the New York Observer article, plus the mention in a Gawker article about Eric Schmidt. 2. I can find nothing else about the subject that suggests notability. 3. This article was repeatedly edited by the redlinked editors User:CRBohner, User:Kbohner, User:Bohnerkate, User:Katebohner, and User:Catherinebohner, as well as IP editors whose editing overlapped with these editors. There appears to be a significant undisclosed conflict in this article. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you list this nomination twice? - Indefensible (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it by removing the duplicate entry from the daily log...please assume good faith, it was probably something they couldn't help on their end, and this should have been brought up on their talk page to fix, not here. Nate • (chatter) 21:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to know if there was a reason that I was not aware of, it can just be reverted otherwise. - Indefensible (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A syntax error in my initial nomination - I didn't know the first nomination had gone through. Twinkle can be a little tricky to use at times. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. - Indefensible (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is a professional profile, inherently promotional, I'll take a quick pass on cleanup. The notability, however, is quite clear. Co-authored Trump: The Art of the Comeback, which puts us at WP:AUTHOR. Contributions on CNBC suggest subject meets WP:JOURNALIST as well. —siro χ o 23:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I've taken a quick cleanup pass. It still needs work but it's less egregiously promotional now. —siro χ o 00:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I met Kate Bohner in 2001 in NYC, while working at a VC firm on Park Ave. We discussed several business deals, including Living Independently, considered co-authoring a book, and then stayed in touch electronically for several years, until she moved to California. Nothing in her Wikipedia page is inconsistent with my experience and knowledge of her accomplishments and endeavors. There are some personal details that some consider notable which are properly omitted from the Wikipedia page, since they might not be verificable or important. But she is a smart, accomplished person who should have remained at CNBC, but was lured into a startup and endeavor with E-Trade, that failed. She worked for many years as an investor and manager to make Living Independently, a tech startup, successful and to insure its acquisition. The entry seems to me to be sufficiently cleaned up to remain as is. JHC 10-6-23 CEO-VC-Retired (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly pro-keep. I think she likely meets the Wikipedia notability test as a journalist who has published some pieces in a bunch of places. Ghostwriting the Trump book is significant. In that vein, the article could cite this Wayback version of an article that's cited in the Trump book's Wikipedia page. On the other hand, aside from her journalism, I think she's not Wikipedia-notable. She has gotten intermittent press through the years but not for things I think are notable - ex-wife of Michael Lewis, widely reported ex-girlfriend of Eric Schmidt, apparent "founder / CEO" since 2015 of a small PR / reputation management firm called Bohner Bespoke that is reportedly based in south Florida or Wilmington or Philadelphia or NYC. See, e.g., this 2018 article placing it in Wilmington, with the other three locations stated on her LinkedIn page, its LinkedIn page, and its website (not reliable sources, of course). Best line on her seems to be from this 1997 Marjorie Williams piece on Michael Lewis in Vanity Fair: "Even her friends describe her as a sort of Manhattan butterfly: self-absorbed, something of an exhibitionist, 'a character out of a Jay Mclnerney novel,' as one puts it." That article quotes a bit of her "journalism" for Harpers Bazaar, about wearing see-through fashions at fancy parties, which suggests she is not exactly Martha Gellhorn. Still, I think her journalist roles probably make the notability cut. Sullidav (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is mentioned and quoted at length in this 1996 Vanity Fair article about her ex-husband Michael Lewis. This, plus the fact that in 1997 she co-wrote a book with Donald Trump, renders her notable, in my opinion, as an influence on two very notable figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkPritchard (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. There is significant coverage in searching newspapers.com. A sampling of articles where she is the primary topic include the following:

R. Kevin Dietrich (April 12, 2002). "'Money is power,' expert tells women". The State. p. 54, D1, D3.
"Leaving TV For Writing Job On Web". New York Daily News. September 1, 1999. p. 32.

Additionally there are numerous reviews of Trump: The Art of the Comeback in major publications and it was on The New York Times Best Seller list so she clearly passes NAUTHOR criteria 3. See these sources for example:

Fred Andrews (December 14, 1997). "The Donald Redux". The New York Times.
"The New York Times Business Best Sellers". The New York Times. January 11, 1998.
"BEST SELLERS". The New York Times. December 21, 1997.

For me this is a clear keep.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surender Singh Kansera

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. WP:BEFORE (for both the english and hindi name) failed to turn up anything else. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 19:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and India. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 19:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to non reliable sources nd clearly fails in WP:NPOLITICIAN Worldiswide (talk) 03:08, 9 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islanders–Penguins rivalry

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

Does not pass GNG. On a WP:BEFORE search, there are no mentions of a current rivalry or mention of one from the past, which negates notability. I would recommend this be deleted or redirected to Pittsburgh Penguins–New York Islanders brawl. Conyo14 (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pennsylvania, New York, and Ice hockey. Conyo14 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a well-known rivalry, such as the NYI-NYR or NYI-PHI rivalries. I don't see the need to redirect as Conyo14 suggested, either. PK T(alk) 20:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of independent, secondary coverage. User:Let'srun 02:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A quick search on the internet does not give any significant results. – sbaio 06:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no substantial results available for this topic. In cases like this, it's important to acknowledge the scarcity of information on the subject.--Correspondentman (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to find any independent third party sources which confirm that such a rivalry has persisted over decades. Without such sources, this seems like WP:FANCRUFT to me. Flibirigit (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Flyers/Penguins & Rangers/Islanders, it's not. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rivalries are made in the playoffs, and the Islanders and Penguins have had several such tumultuous episodes over nearly every decade they have existed. The regular season brawl in 2011 was a natural progression of this rivalry and was already considered notable enough to get its own article. I could even argue that the Isles-Penguins rivalry, on average over the course of their entire respective histories, is a more relevant one than even Isles-Flyers, which apart from one series in 2020 has cooled off so much over the past 3 decades to the point where I'm not even sure it's a rivalry anymore. I will work to provide more sources for this article, but this article was made to mirror several other rivalry articles in terms of attribution and general article construction, so if this article is a candidate for deletion, then there are likely at least 10 other rivalry pages that should be considered for deletion as well. If deletion is the route you choose to take, then it should be done in tandem with all those other pages. StaticAnnouncement (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So first off WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also The Isles–Flyers rivalry was questioned at first, but there were enough newspaper clippings and notability from the 70s and early 80s to justify the article's existence. Feel free to add others to the AfD train. Conyo14 (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create faux "rivalry" articles just because there are articles on certainly highly notable sports rivalries (heck, there are books about Red Sox-Yankees, or Celtics-Lakers, or Celtic-Rangers). If you believe there are other "rivalry" pages that don't pass notability muster, feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. Ravenswing 23:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is disingenuous to compare NYI-Pit to NYI-Phi. The Islanders and Flyers have been division rivals pretty much the entirety of the Islanders existence (maybe the entirety but I didn't check), including years when both teams had legitimate Stanley Cup aspirations. That is not the case for the Islanders and Penguins. The Islanders and Flyers played in a Stanley Cup final against each other - one that was momentous for both teams (Islanders first of a dynasty, finally getting over the hump, Flyers not winning it all despite a record setting season). The Islanders and Penguins never played a series that important. Plus the proximity of New York and Philly (perhaps combined with some rubbing off of the animosity between the Rangers and Flyers) mean that the New York press (and maybe Philly too) pays particular attention to matchups between teams in the two cities. A key phrase in your post is "I'm not even sure it's a rivalry anymore (emphasis added)." Notability is not temporary. If you are interested in the Islanders-Penguins rivalry, to the extent there is one, you may want to try writing an article about the 1975 playoff matchup, which did get a lot of attention back when it was the only 3-0 comeback and you may be able to find enough sources to warrant an article about it. Rlendog (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article creator hasn't presented so much as a sliver of evidence that this purported "rivalry" has engendered the "significant coverage" to the subject that WP:SIGCOV requires. The bar for sports rivalries is very high; this does not meet it. I also oppose a redirect; I just don't think this is a likely search term. Ravenswing 23:08, 9 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 14:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth A De Jong

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

Lack of notability, subject is an academic of no real note. The page is very short and unsourced. Dylanvt (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Computing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar suggests this individual's citation count is sufficient for NPROF. Several first-author papers with hundreds of citations including 700+, 600+, 500+ citations, several more as second author including 2 with thousands of citations. —siro χ o 18:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a high-citation field but his citations are very high, especially for his 1975 dissertation (which indeed makes a clear claim for him to be a pioneer in evolutionary computation; this field didn't explode until the early 1980s). He also passes WP:PROF#C8 (founded a notable journal) and has multiple reviews for his book (not enough for WP:AUTHOR but also helpful). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:NPROF#1 based on citations and #8 as illustrated by David. --hroest 18:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all that was said plus the significant awards. Snowing? -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:41, 10 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 Le Sserafim. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nakamura Kazuha

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:SINGER, WP:BANDMEMBER with WP:BEFORE research on Google/Bing (English) and Naver/Daum (Korean) crosschecking against WP:RSP and WP:KO/RS#R sources returning a lack of WP:SIGCOV from WP:SECONDARY WP:RS other than majortively WP:PASSINGMENTION from South Korean girl group Le Sserafim-related reportings which she is part of, other than that is two commercials press releases [reprint] spam coverage so basically no differences from WP:NOTEBOMB if included here. Also note that AfC rejected Draft:Kazuha (singer) exists and was created before with redirect possibilities templated which also has materials of her writing the lyrics for a song in her group's Unforgiven releases in which the same song was also written by her fellow members, and winning some ballet awards during childhood/pre-debut sourced by a WP:QUESTIONABLE blog-like source (a BEFORE on her awards also return nothing other than passing mentions from Le Sserafim-related reportings when she is announced to be debutting with the group so basically the sort of gossip digging), overall (combining this article with the draft) I don't see how she is notable as an individual as of now. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some verifiable information to Le Sserafim —siro χ o 17:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Le Sserafim per WP:BANDMEMBER. Her notability originates (for now) exclusively from being a member of the band. --Tserton (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - no evidence of individual notability outside of the groupEvaders99 (talk) 03:26, 7 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!} 03:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FunTown Mahjong

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

The article was PRODed in the past, and someone removed the PROD template and added a bunch of sources - that only mention its release for a paragraph or name it and don't talk about it at all. The only reliable sources with depth that I can find (in English) are the IGN review and an Official Xbox Magazine review that I don't know the length of. QuietCicada (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found this [10] but that's it. Timur9008 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Metacritic lists reviews from IGN, OXM, and X-One Magazine UK, which ought to be enough to pass WP:GNG, though most of the online sources listed in the article are useless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm Not all reviews represent WP:SIGCOV. The magazines like OXM were especially giving smaller casual games (such as FunTown Mahjong) a proportional amount of focus...small blurbs. IGN's review looks good, though it has to be said IGN in that period was reviewing just about everything that was slightly more known out there. I'd love to vote here, but I'm also struggling to pick a side when there's no proof of how far do these magazines reach in terms of coverage. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OXM review is quarter page: https://imgur.com/a/tNXBUxe --Mika1h (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting this! And yeah no, this is not even close to be something that counts for WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should have plenty for GNG. In addition to what ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ points to, there's a few more capsule reviews out there including one from the AP, eg [11][12][13], all together this is sufficient to write an article. —siro χ o 17:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several reviews (they aren't extensive, but we have at least 5-6), so I'd thing we're at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 6 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 Invasion and occupation of Monaco during World War II. Star Mississippi 14:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Axis occupation of Monaco

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

This article is entirely within the scope of Invasion and occupation of Monaco during World War II and adds almost no additional information. Luiysia (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Luiysia (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article as described (but for what it is, the few sentences don't add much). Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Invasion and occupation of Monaco during World War II as WP:ATD-M —siro χ o 17:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Oaktree and Siroxo. --Tserton (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and merge it. Luiysia (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this Merger. Please do not take action while this AFD is open. This discussion should run at least a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Should probably just be broadened into a "Monaco during World War II" article. Srnec (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 10 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. ✗plicit 02:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Narayan Yadav College

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

BEFORE does not bring up any sources that might prove notability. Sources are mostly primary :( Sohom (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and India. Sohom (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks references to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2023 (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) 15:46, 6 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!} 06:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Benns

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

An article on a percussionist. The given references are mainly press releases and passing mentions, with the exception of a Meinl profile page, which is connected so cannot serve as a reliable 3rd party source. The subject has performed with several groups (on one of which the article creator previously created an article which was rejected at AfC); there is also a Trevor Babajack Steger article may have some claim to notability due to a UK Blues Acoustic Act of the Year award, but I am not seeing evidence that the present article meets any of the WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. AllyD (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why Meinl artist page cannot be considered a reliable source - they are one of the top percussion manufacturers in the world, and if they endorse an artist this should make them a person or interest. Also as you stated, the subject performs with a UK Blues acoustic act of the year winner, which is further interest. 95.146.0.25 (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PROMO is what we're worried about. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of RS, not much of anything found for this musician. Hits on others with the same name, but nothing for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon googling this artists name, at least in the UK, every result is specifically about this artist, apart from one from ancestry. There is also a knowledge panel generated by Google for the artist, which I believe proves credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.0.25 (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the knowledge panel is generated from Wikipedia, it would be circular to suggest that it can demonstrate the subject's notability for Wikipedia. The Google search results are showing links to the subject's own social media pages, plus passing mentions of the subject's name - unless you can identify some which are detailed critical commentary about this subject? AllyD (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2023 (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) 15:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Brass

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

Sources in the article are more about the actor, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Spinixster (chat!) 10:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 10:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Nothing substantial aside from generic episode recaps. Conyo14 (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2023 (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) 15:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:44, 12 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 Speedy Delete‎ per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) BangJan1999 16:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Maqsood Ahmed

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

Notability. COI note: authored by editor with same username as article subject. MicrobiologyMarcus^{(petri dish•cultures)} 15:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MicrobiologyMarcus^{(petri dish•cultures)} 15:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Checking author's talk page history, it looks like this exact article was previously speed deleted. I'm going to add that tag to the top of the page. MicrobiologyMarcus^{(petri dish•cultures)} 15:19, 6 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 Croissant#Origin and history. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain Claudius Goy

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

A very thinly-sourced biography of a chef who may or may not have invented, or documented, the modern croissant. The main source given for the claim is that a bookshop website in North Carolina describes his 1915 recipe book (which they are selling for $1500) as containing the first published croissant recipe. Other sources consider the modern croissant to date from 1906.

References to Goy's recipe book do appear in the prose of a few modern cookbooks, but without much detail about the man, or giving much weight to the idea that he definitely invented the modern croissant.

Goy may merit a mention in context in the croissant article, but it doesn't look like he meets the known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique of WP:AUTHOR, or the depth of coverage of WP:BASIC. Belbury (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Food and drink. Belbury (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Croissant#Origin_and_history per nom. Reywas92^Talk 16:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Croissant#Origin_and_history. Not even getting into the notability question and other facts noted by nom that could very well be true. The article is so short and intertwined with croissant history that, regardless of any other data, merge would be the right choice. gidonb (talk) 20:12, 6 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 speedy delete per G5 by UtherSRG. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Patrick Lusardi

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

WP:PERP and WP:NCRIME applies, orphaned article notable for a single scandal at an amateur poker tournament. MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5, sockpuppet Wikishovel (talk) 18:20, 6 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!} 18:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amending closure. I'm changing my closure to soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the articles' undeletion at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maida of Aukh

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

I'm nominating not only Maida of Aukh, but also Chakhig, Khour I, Khasi I, Khasi II, Surakat, Battle of Gebak-Ghala, Yanbek, Battle of Arm-Kurt. I will be showing how these articles are either WP:HOAX or lacking completely WP:RS. Forgery can be also found. Here we go...

Sources in Maida of Aukh:

Тесаев 2020a, p. 32: the author here is actually Yavuz Akhmadov. Despite being a dr. of historical sciences who without citing a primary source, makes following claim about the existence of Maida:
"According to folk legends, the Chechens' struggle against the invaders was led by military leaders Makhtsur, Idig, Aldam and others. Chechens of the Aukh society in old Arabic-language chronicles [which chronicles??? - WikiEditor1234567123] name the names of military leaders - Taimasha, Yanbek and Mada. Moreover, in addition to partisan actions, they also fought major battles with the Horde in the Aukh gorges, after one of which the Horde forever forgot the road to Aukh.
Адилсултанов 1993: not a reliable historian or even a historian at all. Can't find information about him whatsoever. Google search results show only this blog post "Чеченцы-аккинцы (ауховцы) и их гражданские формирования" (which the article is using as a source).
Ангуни 2013: not a reliable historian or even a historian at all.
Хизриев 1980 & Хизриев 1980: unable to find this source online but the author is a candidate of historical sciences and a professor. Some statements in his work, despite his status, are unsourced and clearly fringe.^[a] Though we don't know much about the region "Aukhar/Avakhar" mentioned in Persian chronicles, we know that Maida isn't mentioned there.^[b] Not to mention that the localization of "Aukhar/Avakhar" is still a matter of a debate, with one of the other major versions being that it is Avaria, Dagestan, i. e. portraying "Aukhar/Avakhar" people as Aukhs is violation of WP:NPOV. So in short, Khizriev made up the battles between the Avakhar people under Maidan and Gazikumukh Shamkhalate against the Timurids (Battle of Gebak-Ghala and Battle of Arm-Kurt).

Sources in Chakhig:

Муртазалиев: not a reliable historian or even a historian at all.
Ангуни: go back to the section "Sources in Maida of Aukh" to see why it's unreliable.
Сулейманов 1978: not a reliable historian or even a historian at all, however, he's simply mentioning folklore and not portraying it as historical facts.
Ахмадов 2001: unverifiable source. Also go back to the "Sources in Maida of Aukh" to see why source is probably unreliable in this matter.
Хизриев: source doesn't even mention Chakhig - forgery. Also go back to the "Sources in Maida of Aukh" to see why source is probably unreliable in this matter.

Sources in Khour I:

As I have mentioned, Anguni, Murtazaliev and Suleymanov as well as Айдемиров are not historians and aren't WP:RS even if they do mention such figure.
Хизриев: doesn't mention Khour I, i. e. forgery. Also see about him above.
Иванов: doesn't mention Khour I, i. e. forgery.
Тесаев 2020: not a reliable historian (doesn't have any candidate or dr. titles either), rather a hoaxer/mystifer, making crazy theories. The name of the book is "Historical figures of Chechnya" but has folkloric figures such as Khour attributed to the Alan king Khusy while folkloric figure Turpal Nakhcho shown as a historical.

Having now shown the main sources (Akhmadov, Tesaev, Murtazaliev, Anguni and others) in usage for the articles, I'm not going to explain each time why they're unreliable. Here I'm going to show some new ones:

Sources in Khasi I:

Кузнецов 1971 &: doesn't mention Khasi I, i. e. forgery.

Sources in Surakat:

Салгириев, А.М (2019). "Летопись об исходе чеченцев из Нахчувана (перевод и комментарии)". Таллам. 2: 33–35: not a reliable historian whatsoever nor could I find this source.

For Battle of Gebak-Ghala, Yanbek, Battle of Arm-Kurt:

Article is using as Khizriev as source again but he makes up battles between Avakhar and Golden Horde when we have little to no information whatsoever about Avakhar, see "Sources in Maida of Aukh", I explained it there. Other sources in the article are the ones mentioned above i. e. unreliable.

WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ For instance, recently I rewrote an article Timurid invasion of Simsim which was almost completely, if not completely, based on folklore and incorrect information. Here Alaexis noticed made up battle between Simsim and Timurids near modern day Grozny which in reality wasn't mentioned in primary sources (Zafarnama by Nizam al-Din Shami and the Zafarnama by Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi) and I quickly removed it.
^ See Zafar-Namē by Shami and Zafar-Namē by Yazdi.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Asia, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making a very detailed case for deleting these articles. It's always a challenge to identify and deal with pseudo-history of this sort on Wikipedia.

I saw some of the issues myself but assumed that in spite of some embellishments and exaggerations, the personalities and events existed and had sources that covered them. Now I see that it's either entirely unsourced or uses unreliable sources. I support the deletion. Alaexis_¿question? 18:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues here is that non-Russian speaking users are usually the ones that get deceived the most in these type of articles that use Russian sources as they're unable to verify information unfortunately. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a full dive into all the sources presented by the nom here, but what I did look into seems very concerning. The source I did read in full – via Google translate – was the undated Хизриев source. This source mentions the names of no individuals who faought against the Timurids except for Gayur Khan and his son Mohammed. It is frequently cited to support claims of individual names or their descent, and as such it has clearly been misrepresented (termed "forgery" by the nom). This undated source appears to have been modified from the original with editorial insertions, ethnic POV, and non-academic language (mentioned by commenters at the site it's been posted on; not just machine translation artifacts).
I suspect that the individuals whose articles are nominated here are all legendary (see Khour II#Background and Historical references), and people have taken it upon themselves to attempt to factualise them using tangentially related published material, in some ways clearly dishonestly.
No further time right now to do a fuller investigation, but based on the thorough nom and my hour looking into it and the results of that, it seems likely these articles all fail verification in toto. I hope to circle back later, but in case I forget, dropping a delete now with thanks to the nom. Folly Mox (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having now spent several more hours digging into a single source (Иванов 1914), I'm considering that some of the details of Khasi I are the result of incorrect synthesis based on linguistic similarity. There was a person associated with Asud / Alania named in the 元史 who submitted to Ögodei and whose son Atachi went on to serve the Mongols.
This person's name is incorrectly transcribed in the article's source as *杭忍思; it is given in the 新元史 and modern punctuated 元史 as 杭忽思 (Hang-hu-si, *Khanghus?) and the 四庫全書元史 as 哈喝斯 (Ha-he-si, *Khasi?). Apparently his name is also written 昂和思 (Ang-he-si, *Anghosi?). In the article Khasi I, the name is called "Khasy Khan" and "Khusy Khan". They are never referred to as a "khan" in the Chinese sources, and apart from their eldest son Atachi and second son 按法普 (An-fa-pu), no other children are mentioned (e.g. Khour I, one of the questionable articles here).
The Khasi I article goes on to state that Chechen folklore has Khasi being executed by the Mongols for his son Khour's disobedience, while the Mongols claim that he died during a campaign. The Chinese sources have him dying in combat, after which his wife 外麻思 (Wai-ma-si) successfully defends his city on behalf of the Mongols.
I don't know enough about Middle Chinese phonology (much less Middle Mongolian phonology / Circassian / whatever all we're dealing with here) to speculate as to the identification of someone named "Khasi" with someone named 杭忽思 / 昂和思 / 哈喝斯. But I do think that if his son led a rebellion against the Mongols (as is claimed in Khasi I, Khour I, Mongol invasions of Durdzuketi), the Chinese sources on the individual would have mentioned it somehow.
Also noting that Khour II names him as Gayur Khan, the individual in the sketchy source I looked at the other day. Folly Mox (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that this ties in with my hypothesis above about attempted factualisation of legendary figures using tangentially related published sources. I imagine the whole first bit of this Sado-Orsoy dynasty / clan, up through Khasi II, may be unverifiable except by recourse to folklore studies. ~~If we retain the information, it might be best framed as a notable legend.~~ Folly Mox (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC) Struck in light of nom's reply below 07:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]
The thing is that Sado-Orsoy clan or teip, as they're called in Chechnya and Ingushetia, never had such big influence and never ruled over Alania or Durdzuketi (note, the sources never mention that fictious Khasi ruled over Durdzuketi, forgery again). These are simply mystifications that are spread by unreliable sources to magnify their own history and make it seem more ancient. This is seen by the fact that in Khour II there are tries to connect the real figure Gayur Khan with Sadoy-Orsoy, backed up again with a unreliable source.^[a] Khasi articles and others can't even be preserved as a notable legends because they're not notable legends in Vaknakh folklore at all. Notable legends would be the likes of Turpal Nakhcho (legendary ancestor of Chechens), Galga (legendary ancestor of Ingush), Ga (legendary ancestor of Ingush), Kartskhal (legendary founder of Nazran), Aldaman Gheza and etc that were recorded all over Chechnya and Ingushetia. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Same Murtazaliev (Муртазалиев, В. К вопросу об истории государства и права чеченцев) source used here that I mentioned above: "His ancestry and genealogy were studied by the Sadoy clan historian Murtazaliev who did fieldwork in Chechnya during 1991–1999 by interviewing several Sadoy clan elders." Considering he's from Sadoy clan himself, obviously not a WP:NPOV source. Interviewing Sadly clan elders about a figure on whom we don't know much and who was from 14th century isn't a good source to learn from but it's fine for Murtazaliev.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robert Citrone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Capital Management

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

Fails WP:NCORP and has been tagged for notability issues. This hedge fund is just so secretive that its really hard to get any in-depth info on it. Most of the time, the info will be about its founder rather than the firm itself. Alternatively we can just redirect the page to Robert Citrone. Imcdc Contact 13:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 13:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems fine, coverage is all about him, very little solely about the fund. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 6 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!} 18:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Liga 3 West Java

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

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Refs in article and BEFORE showed nothing other than promo, stats and game recaps. Nothing meets independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 13:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:13, 7 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persena Nagekeo

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and BEFORE show no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 13:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very short and therefore no significant coverage. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 01:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Author sock blocked.[14] // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Suitskvarts (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Place Clichy (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Law & Order characters. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Cerreta

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Law & Order characters. Spinixster (chat!) 12:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 12:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per nom. Not a major character on the show, insufficient sourcing to pass GNG. The standalone notability is not there. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, as the relatively short stint of the character engendered no great cultural impression. BD2412 T 18:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. Nothing substantial in reliable independent sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:58, 12 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retention

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

A disambiguation page consisting of almost all WP:partial title matches, and the sole seemingly legitimate entry, Retention (news server), just refers to the standard meaning of the word in a particular situation. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Disambiguations. Skynxnex (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Speedy Keep- This page has existed since 2002, it is a required page because Retention is a general term & applies to many things, the articles listed here either include retention in the name and/or are about certain types of retention. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there are multiple valid links here. Recall (memory), Customer retention, and Employee retention are all known simply as "retention" in some contexts. I'm not familiar with all of the other topics listed, but it's possible some of them are too. It would probably be worth cutting down the page and maybe collecting some of these topics together into broad-concept articles (it seems to me Customer retention, University student retention, and Employee retention are all special cases of the same broad concept), but there's enough to merit a disambiguation page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with above, also "retention" is frequently used for the concept covered in the Retainage article. BobKilcoyne (talk) 17:01, 7 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 nomination withdrawn‎ thanks to WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) ltbdl (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oakmont High School

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. ltbdl (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. ltbdl (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the top results from google, the article has been expanded to include 1317 references. (Not that the presence of the references in the article matters after all, it only matters that they EXIST.) This high school is 68 years old, predating the internet, so it is likely many additional sources could be found offline. In any case, the references now in the article are sufficient to meet WP:GNG, and therefore WP:NSCHOOL. Jacona (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kudos to Jacona, whose WP:HEY efforts have successfully provided reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage. Easily meets WP:NSCHOOL. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:40, 9 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. Star Mississippi 13:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Boulivar

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. The current sources look like passing mentions and a paid notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Dance, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sadly, as dance is one of the most underrepresented parts of Wikipedia, but cannot find more sources to establish notability beyond what is mentioned in the article, which is itself not enough even were citations added. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just pointing out that this is not the first time this has been discussed. Suitskvarts (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was back in 2010, when standards were different. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 13 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. While there is precedent for BLP articles to be deleted upon a "no consensus" result, that applies when the material in the BLP presents the subject inaccurately. There has been no real argument here, even from the nominator, that anything in this article is not accurate. Given that, a "no consensus" result defaults as normal to retaining the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bell (British Army officer)

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

I am the subject of this article.

I am suffering with PTSD, depression and anxiety. This article re-traumatises me constantly, which is a threat to my life.

Over 3 years ago I was a Major General in the British Army and therefore notable. But now I am a part time, non-notable private person with very serious mental health issues arising from the events you record. Given the time elapsed and the very serious impact on my health I would like this article to be deleted, for me to be forgotten on Wikipedia, and allowed to try and rebuild my life in some form. The suffering I am living with is beyond any justification or negligible public interest given the time elapsed. Individuals matter, as does time. The notable/public interest calculus can't be locked to a single event at a single moment in time, leaving those of us impacted struggling to live what is left of our lives. By any measure that must be wrong.

Deletion is what I need to live, just as several leading newspapers have acknowledged and acted on.

I won't be monitoring this so please don't reply here. I'm sure you'll find a way to e-mail if you need to. By all means consider "Disambiguate", "Redirect", "Merge", or "Draftify" - I have no idea what they are.

Finally, at the very least the finding was that "on the balance of probability" I lied to the Army. Th truth is I didn't but that makes no difference anymore. My life is fast fading.

Please help. This is beyond serious for me now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilf1642 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 October 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 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - it has long been established that subjects of articles do not get to dictate to Wikipedia whether or not they have an article. He admits that he meets the notability threshold. That he has made a poor decision that has impacted on his life is not our concern. We only need to be concerned that BLP is adhered to, which it appears to be. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but what is the notability argument here? per WP:SOLDIER there are no longer presumed notability guidelines for soldiers, so for this article to be kept we would need significant coverage in independent reliable and secondary sources. I am not convinced there is secondary sourcing and note that articles about a particular event, published in a newspaper, would be primary sources. I have not researched this properly yet, so not making a !vote, but I think any keep !vote needs to be based on the notability and not just a rejection of the subject's appeal for anonymity. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on this particular case yet, but CBEs are often thought to pass point 1 of WP:ANYBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: The London Gazette is a secondary source, as are The Telegraph and other sources used in the article. As Phil Bridger says, the CBE brings this person over the notability threshold. Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No these are WP:PRIMARY. Please see especially note d on that page. As for Phil Bridger's point, it is a good one, and he couches it appropriately: "often thought", but please also read WP:ANYBIO which says, inter alia:
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
There is no automatic presumption of notability for a CBE. However, the existence of a CBE is likely to point to significant secondary sources from which an article could be written. Likely but not guaranteed. It can tell you where to look, but we are still where we were. If there is a notable subject here, you need multiple significant mentions in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. Those are what the article would be built from. None are in the article to date. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly expound on why you think the telegram reporting is a primary source? It doesn't seem to qualify under your linked policy page, and nothing in note D seems to apply to it either. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The source in question is actually called the Telegraph, A British national newspaper. The article is here [15]. Note the date: 7 Jan 2021. It is contemporary reporting of an event. Now in note d of WP:PRIMARY that I directed to, we read:
"A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."
That is what we are reading here. It is a primary source. See also WP:PRIMARYNEWS:
"most news stories are considered primary sources"
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the Telegram/Telegraph correction, that was an autocomplete 'helpful contribution'. But I have to say I don't think I share your view. Looking in to the actual policy page its based on, Lets look through note D together. The one that seems most likely to apply is investigative reports. This is not investigative reporting. Its not based on the first hand accounts of the reporter. That this is the correct reading is further supported by the supplemental definitions they give in that note on WP:NOR:

The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, and poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, and pottery.

This was not an inside view by a participant or anyone involved.

The University of California, Berkeley Libraries offers this definition: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer. Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period".

Nobody who wrote these articles is a participant in the events being studied.

Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."

Again, none of these articles seem to be first-hand accounts.

I appreciate that you're working from good faith here and I'm not implying otherwise. But reading our policies here I don't believe that the position the Telegraph article is a primary source holds up to any scrutiny. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I have pointed you to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. A newspaper article about an event, such as this, is a primary source. If you don't know that, you have some reading to do. I'll leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay, the actual policy its attempting to explain is WP:NOR which is why I quoted from that policy document extensively, point by point on related matters. If you don't wish to engage on the topic then don't engage, but snarky contributions like you just made do a disservice to the type of deliberations expected here. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Outside of the incident the individual was sacked from their job for, I am not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also applies here. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLPREQUESTDELETE says Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed. That does not apply here, the article is well sourced, and there is an editor opposing deletion (me). Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says
"Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete."
Furthermore the article is sourced with primary sources. There is no secondary treatement of the subject. This very much pertains. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is much secondary treatment of the individual [16], [17], [18]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider them primary, the analyse the situation rather than simply saying what happened. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be quite a selective reading of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full text where they explain that he was the first person in his position in over a decade to "resign" for lack of a better work. [19]. They also present facts around the situation and what happens next. That's more than just Mr. xyz did ABC thing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an IAR case. The core of BLP is that we must tread lightly when covering living people, especially people who barely meet our notability bar. The subject of this article is a marginally notable person; we should let him live his life in peace without us intruding. If The Telegraph or another major broadsheet publishes an obit for him, we can revisit this issue --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guerillero and Jenks24. Notability for an article here is marginal. There is no presumed notability, even for a CBE, and I cannot find anything significant in secondary sources about the events leading to the CBE. In many cases this kind of article might be kept on the back of the CBE, but notability is not automatic on that point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reports in Telegraph and the Times. Ex head of 77th Brigade - not just any general Lyndaship (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable under WP:GNG.[20][21] WP:BLP has no rationale, so cannot be applied. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are WP:PRIMARY so do not count towards meeting GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not primary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PRIMARYNEWS Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, they are not primary; that is a misreading of that essay. Furthermore, there additional sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is upset by one sentence in the article which reads: In January 2021, Bell was directed to resign his commission after the Army Board found he had lied about the nature of his relationship with a female subordinate. He did something he knew he wasn't suppose to, and doesn't want people to know he got caught doing it. That is not a valid reason to delete an article. The awards he's won, the rank he had, and the coverage of him all add to his notability. The news coverage mentions how rare it is for someone of his rank to be forced out. Dream Focus 10:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as an exception because it's the right thing to do. The subject is not a public figure and, although major generals are usually notable, this is not a famous WWII-era commander who commanded vast numbers of troops in famous battles but a career officer who attracted little coverage until one incident at the end of his career. It does not seem in keeping with our goals that a 30-year career is summarised with a list of positions and awards (which would be roughly the same for any contemporary army officer following a similar career path) and then an almost throwaway line about a scandal. Who among us would want our careers summarised that way if we became notable? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ANYBIO says that someone is likely to be notable if they pass one of its criteria, it still needs to be shown at AfD that they are notable. The only event that is notable fall under BLP1E, and even then that reporting isn't sustained. Finally I'm of the same opinion as Guerillero, that per the spirit of BLP we should tread lightly when it comes to living people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck given the work of Serial Number 54129, and the current state of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. Sorry, but the chap's been an O/C Scots Guards, Brigade Commander and Major-General, OBE and CBE. He passes WP:ANYBIO #1 by mileage.If he's not notable, then very few soldiers would be. And while I'm sympathetic to anyone with PTSD, I suspect that if we lost the last line of the article, he would be in less discomfort. Talking of BLP1E, that's completely irrelevant: his notability rests on his achieving high rank in a national army and receiving some of the most important recognition awards available. If anyone thinks that his notability rests on his having gone over the side at one point in that career, then... that's odd, to say the least. Serial 12:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're doing this, I'd reaffirm my vote also. Note only did he always pass ANYBIO in spades already, but further evidence of the importance of the positions he held has since been added. It's good to see that confirmed by even delete voters, who literally recognise that this is a usual article. BLP1E clearly does not apply; notability is soundly established—even the subject himself acknowledges that, and NOTTEMPORARY applies, he has held several positions of trust and high rank (he was an ensign at the 1997 Trooping of the colour, for Pete's sake—that's out of hundreds who could have been). Finally, no one has established how removing a well-sourced article—a potential good article in other circumstances—actively helps maintain and improve the encyclopedia, per IAR. People are throwing IAR around like it is a get-out-of-jail-free card, but ay is, if one reads it, very short and very simple: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Note, the sole criterion against which it should be used: maintenance and improvement of the encyclopaedia, not white-washing biographies. By the way, I assume that means there must be such a thing as "IAR restore", too, although I've never heard of that either. I suppose at least restoring policy-abiding guidelines to project space could be argued to be an improvement to the encyclopedia. But if we allow article subjects to dictate our content, then we are on a slippery slope; the thin end of the wedge; and through the looking glass considering what we are hear for. It's ironic, but the OP, having thrown their hand grenade in and made it clear they are "not monitoring" the aftermath, might even be pleasantly surprised. His military honours and career are fully contextualised, with few negative aspects noted—indeed, there were none to note!—a brave and intelligent man need not hide; the one thing he might still disapprove of has been reduced to its relevant weight with a number of views present which are supportive of his position (again, as the OP notes in his nom). As Prince George might've said, "I mean, boil my brains, it’s only a dictionary. No-one’s asked us to eat ten raw pigs for breakfast. Good Lord, I mean, we’re British, aren’t we?"^{Apologies, of course I know we are not!} :) This, comrades, is an article with which both the project and the subject can be satisfied. Serial 18:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the healing process is to learn how to deal with trauma and how it's presented to others; to be blunt, we aren't here to help you get better. It's been documented, we report on it in a neutral tone and move on. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article had been challenged before January 2021, it would have been a pretty clear keep at that point. I've gone ahead and revdeled some unsourced accusations that were tossed in, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Salt AGF that this person is who he says he is. We can get carried away in our enthusiasm to publish by our own standards. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in the Telegraph, the Times, the BBC, it's unfortunate that the individual has mental health issues, but the issue at hand is discussed rather briefly and in a very neutral tone. The resignation can be handled using neutral prose and helps add to the notability here (people are more apt to look for information about this person now that the affair is in the public realm; before the person would likely be only of interest to military history buffs). Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as no different than recent Canadian military commanders removed from their positions (one was hunting ducks with an illegal firearm, others have been involved in sexual assault cases). These are public figures and take public money for their positions, coverage of their transgressions helps the public understand what is being done with their money. This is really no different than any other scandal that Trump or is friends have been involved in, something was done, it's been documented and we can mention it here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, please read the sources. There was no "affair", the subject (and if he comes back to read this, thank you for your service, and keep hydrated, extremely important for handling or even curing depression), had some stuff to talk about and did so, nothing physical. Maybe consider striking "the affair is..." comment as inaccurate, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the "thing" that did or didn't happen. Whatever it was, he resigned, or talked about resigning, that's why the article is important. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of the rare cases where we should ignore all rules to delete an article. I'm just reading the nomination summary...Deletion is what I need to live...are we really going to keep an article on a marginally notable figure when we know that his life could end by doing so? C'mon. Life is more important than Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Based on his Linkdin page, it would appear he is referring to his financial well-being as opposed to mental/physical health. (fyi/imo) - wolf 03:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Agreed. Delete~~. ResonantDis_tortion 16:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My vote struck due to article updates, with a more reasonable incident summary with due weight.ResonantDis_tortion 19:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ResonantDistortion: Just seeking clarification; are you in agreement with the 'delete' !vote directly above? And if so, are you striking your 'delete' !vote, do you still have a position? (re: do you support keeping? merging? other?) Cheers - wolf 03:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The arguments above about the number of sources are focused on the wrong thing, in my opinion. His notability hinges entirely on being forced to resign based on this accusation. This is the heart of WP:BLP1E, there is no notability outside of the conviction for this alleged relationship. That's not enough to sustain & expand an article on a living person. No matter how many RSes report on the conviction, we can't expand his article beyond that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it hangs on the relationship thing, but it helps. The OBE/CBE is a strong indicator of notability, he's a highly decorated solder in the UK military. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Major general is equivalent to the various US military commanders for which we have articles. This isn't some low-ranking GI that was forced out, it's one of the higher ups in the military. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an indicator we have a bunch of articles on non-notable military personnel. Just being a high-ranking officer is not enough, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ResonantDis_tortion 16:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Redirect to the List of British generals and brigadiers while preserving the edit history. Notability is borderline, and editors may find the subject to be notable in light of future coverage. The subjects own feelings should have no bearing on any of this. --Kerbyki (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find that this is a a biographical article of a relatively unknown, non-public figure, where the subject has requested deletion. In such cases we should delete. Frankly, while WP:N is met, it's not met by a lot. Sources in the article, other than the last and perhaps first (which I can't evaluate because it's dead) all appear to be primary. We have indicators of notability (CBE) but thus far no one has dug up much more... Hobit (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's move forward a bit, after he's passed on (for whatever reasons, even if he dies of old age). We have a highly decorated soldier from an elite unit with a long career that was the first in over a decade to be forced out for whatever reason. We take out the emotional component of the situation, we could still build a pretty decent article based on what's available. This isn't a chef in a canteen on some far-off island, he was the head of a major UK unit for at least a decade or more. We've build articles with less on the oldest living WW2 veteran for example. Some sources seem to suggest he retired, others say he was forced out; more than likely the was asked to leave or be fired. Whatever the reason, the military career alone is enough upon which to build an article; he was in an elite military unit, and was well publicized when the received the awards and was even used on social media posts by the unit before the "incident". Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And his article is about of the same quality of the others in the same Wiki category where his article is found. I can't see how the two dozen others are notable but this poor fellow isn't, when they've had the same job. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because his comments seem that he just wants to disappear altogether, not just from the incident, "to try and rebuild my life in some form. The suffering I am living with is beyond any justification or negligible public interest given the time elapsed. Individuals matter, as does time. The notable/public interest calculus can't be locked to a single event at a single moment in time, leaving those of us impacted struggling to live what is left of our lives. By any measure that must be wrong." Maybe the man just wants a private life. — Maile (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have confirmation it is him. I take these requests with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he wants a private life/disappear altogether. Really? Then why not take down this website: https://www.christopher-bell.co.uk/ which has been updated recently with new appointments. Rupples (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per subject's request. Give the guy a break. Our BLP policy permits this per this paragraph:
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relatively unknown subjects
  - Chris Bell was a "non-public figure" until he was fired. He did not seek out publicity.

WP:BLP links to this essay:

Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Rupples‘ observation on the inconsistency of General Bell’s LinkedIn profile and the sad-sounding deletion request above.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per our long-standing practice of courtesy deleting articles about individuals of marginal notability who request deletion. While arguably this individual meets the notability bar, there seems to be nothing meaningful to say beyond a recitation of simple bullet points of his military career, and calling out an unfortunate ending thereof. Therefore, at best marginal notability or a BLP1E, i.e. exactly the type of situation in which we afford that courtesy. Martinp (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"...our long-standing practice of courtesy deleting articles about individuals of marginal notability who request deletion." - Our what now? We have a long-standing practice of citing a policy or guideline as a reason to delete. Do you have one? - wolf 05:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirm my delete. Subsequent to my vote, the article has been expanded with reasonably sourced material (and there are some discussions of Bell's LinkedIn profile vs article.) However, my argument still applies. The material (now) in the article is essentially a bio, together with material that Bell said when interviewed in a book/documentary/whatever, not about himself but about the war. So while he does likely pass our notability bar and so we *can* have an artilce about him, I still find his notability is marginal, and so we can and should afford the courtesy of a delete if he as the subject wishes. (I trust we are sufficiently persuaded it is indeed the subject not an impersonator making this request, but haven't investigated that.) Martinp (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"So while he does likely pass our notability bar and so we *can* have an artilce about him..." Cool, that's all we need. - wolf 05:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Aside from the obvious reason to accede to his request, I'm not sure he is really notable actually. It isn't clear he commanded on operations at brigade or battalion level, and that wouldn't even guarantee notability. The CBE certainly doesn't make him notable, most reasonably successful COs get an OBE, same for CBE for brigadiers. For me, he's a case of BLP1E, and we should tread lightly for BLPs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have more generals with embarrassing details in their articles. Should we delete their articles too? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they have borderline notability, involve a non-public figure, and they request deletion, then yes. I think that's very reasonable no matter if a general, CEO, or some other similar role. Hobit (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favour of deletion of any non-notable figure, but that's not what I am talking about. As it happens their notability is not related to the embarrassing bits they keep trying to delete. I note that the subject here confesses that "I was a Major General in the British Army and therefore notable" but believes that they are no longer notable. This is a misconception; notability is not temporary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it is also a misconception that Major Generals are presumed notable on Wikipedia. We go on WP:BIO and sourcing. See WP:NSOLDIER. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - per Mjroots, DreamFocus, Serial and... every BLP we have that contains information that that subject doesn't like and would want removed from that article. This is an encyclopaedia, not Famdom. We document notable, supported facts and events and we don't tailor our articles to help subjects avoid embarrassment. If we started doing that, it would never end. We would be regularly gutting not only BLPs, but bio's in general, of any information the subject, or their families, or their friends, or their agents, or their fanclubs, or anyone else ftm, wants removed because they feel it may paint the subject in a negative light. WP is not censored. - wolf 23:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I echo this. What he reportedly did isn't that serious, he hansn't abused anyone or killed anyone... Embarassing, perhaps. It's not a reason to delete the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of this guy who repeatedly raped his daughter. [22] (He got eighteen months.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so if that guy writes in a clumsily created AfD that his BLP is keeping him up at night and destroying his life, (and we confirm it's really him - have we actually done that here?) do we also delete, salt, pepper and lightly butter his article as well? Ya know... just to give the poor guy a break 'cuz child rape has nothing to do with the military so it shouldn't be a wiki-article, and one of the cites was written on Tuesday so that shouldn't count, etc., etc.... - wolf 19:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, the US Supreme Court took up this very issue (whether rape is a military or civil matter, not whether toast should be buttered) as a result of this case and others. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that Grazioplene has trouble sleeping at night. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per common sense. He is notable on two counts, being a high-ranking officer and making a big mistake. Claiming that this simple article is a threat to his life is going way overboard. The news of his disgrace is out there; this article isn't going to change that. Neither does it somehow impede his efforts to rebuild his life. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, we can let this go. J947 † ^edits 01:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given there's now strong doubt this is him, genuinely, I'll sit this out. J947 † ^edits 03:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he is not so notable, and the sourcing is not such, that there is no room for discretion. As said above, there will be plenty of opportunity to review once this is no longer a BLP. Ingratis (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely notable; we should respect a BLP subjects wishes in a marginal case like this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per A. B. and Martinp. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's acceptable to delete an article about a relatively unknown, non-public figure at the request of the subject (WP:BIODEL). Major generals fall into this category - they do not hold public office and typically have a very low public profile, unless maybe if they play a substantial role in a major war. The article is largely based on official announcements, press releases and the like, which indicates that coverage of the subject is very limited. The only exception is one minor news story which has zero long term significance. Hut 8.5 08:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A cursory look suggests that there are more mentions of him on Google Books and in news articles than featured in this article, and according to his own website he was Private Secretary to CGS. This is before we even get to the notability of his exit from the Army. Incidentally I've tried reaching out to people who may be able to help with Bell's apparent mental health issues, so that hopefully we don't have to wait for an obituary as one editor commented. —Simon Harley (Talk). 18:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that by CGS you mean the Chief of the General Staff (United Kingdom)? Please do not use abbreviations when they can't be expected to be understood by nearly all Wikipedia editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People shouldn't be !voting on content they don't understand. - wolf 00:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Delete, just because we can have an article does not mean we should. This is an encyclopedia, not fandom-true.But it's also not an index of every soldier, and there's nothing lost by not having an article on Bell. Star Mississippi 19:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ultimately a low-profile individual with very little notability, not even the minor incident which ended his career got too much attention. Normally I would consider the page very borderline, given the subject request I don't see too many problems in deleting it. Cavarrone 19:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before making a decision here it might be an idea to take a look at the subject's Linked-in page.[23]. Was leaning delete, now . . . ? Rupples (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the numerous attempts by largely SPA editors in the article history to remove or use less specific wording about the subject's resignation from the Army. Rupples (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, on LinkedIn, General Bell looks like he’s doing much better than he claims above. I wonder if someone was spoofing his identity when they asked this article be deleted. Or, perhaps he’s putting on a brave face on LinkedIn and really suffering. Or, maybe he’s just playing us to get rid of that embarrassing incident.

Perhaps we keep the article for now and tell the nominator to use the VRT system to confirm their identity and explain their request. Is that the appropriate procedure to follow?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant of the Linkedin page, we should be asking for identity confirmation. But I do suspect this is him. Hobit (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he wants to get rid of this "embarrassing incident". As seen on the Linkdin page, he is pursuring a very lucrative, but also very public career in consulting. Before anyone hires him, they're likely to look up his WP page first (anybody who's anybody has one these days, and it's the goto source to check people out). In short, this page is costing him money, (which can be very "distressing" indeed). Agree with confirming if the OP is really him or not, (as noted above), and/or was this AfD written by an agent/lawyer/PR firm on his behalf? This Linkdin page is a very strong reason for him to seek deletion here, but considering the impressive, and quite notable career laid out on that profile, it is also a pretty strong reason to keep this page. - wolf 03:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of unbolding your keep Thewolfchild. I hope that is okay. You can only have one bolded !vote in a deletion discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: Yes of course. I had done that for emphasis as opposed to !voting, but point taken. - wolf 12:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My keep vote was solely based on the fact that he has been mentioned in RS. However I was concerned when he says Deletion is what I need to live, just as several leading newspapers have acknowledged and acted on coupled with his former role at 77th Brigade (United Kingdom) whose task is to control the narrative. Lyndaship (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So this is an attempt at PROMO. I will say, for someone with PTSD, he's doing quite well for himself, based on the overly positive tone of this Linked-in posts. I suspect someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes... even though the !vote talley is (currently) close right now, this is one close where the admin will really need to weigh the actual arguments, and info coming to light, as opposed to numbers and (apparently) misplaced iar compassion. (imo) - wolf 03:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per WP:GNG and as a CBE per WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The question I'm asking myself is this: "If the last sentence in the article merely stated he'd resigned (as desired by the SPAs, but reverted), how likely is it this AfD would have been put forward? Rupples (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While writing the above comment the article has been significantly expanded by User:Serial Number 54129 and the "misdemeanour" (my word) given a lot less weight. Contributors may wish to reassess their !votes in the light of this. Rupples (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. First, I want to link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indira Raman, which resulted in a "do the right thing" consensus to delete, just days ago, and which deals with somewhat similar circumstances. In my opinion, we should simply delete the "subsequent career" section of the page (the part about the relationship thing), in its entirety, on WP:BLP grounds. The rest of the page seems OK to me, and here we have someone who unambiguously meets WP:GNG. I say this because I believe that we should set limits on what page subjects can dictate to us about content. We should make absolutely sure that the page is BLP-compliant, and remove material that may be trivial if it doesn't reflect well. But when someone definitely meets BLP, to the point of being at least slightly outside the limits of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, we should still report encyclopedic and BLP-compliant information about that person, as opposed to deletion as a form of virtue signaling. By they way, that other AfD I linked to concerned someone who clearly passed WP:PROF, but who actually failed GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I made this edit: [24]. In my opinion, the removal of the material that I made in that edit pretty much eliminates the rationale that the page should be deleted because it paints an unpleasant picture of the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That edit has been reverted, which weakens my keep opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Tryptofish, the edit you made removed both the context of and responses to the allegation while leaving the allegation itself. How the he'll is that in lime with BLP? Your edit gave undue weight to the attack aspect and removed sourced material. What gives? What have I misunderstood Serial 23
  
  16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  
  There's no need to shout. I felt that it was in "lime" (sic) with BLP to reduce the amount of weight given to the incident, by greatly shortening the passage to a brief summary followed by Bell's denial (which I left). I was motivated in part by the comments in the nomination on this AfD page. Shortly after I made the edit, it was reverted. And I haven't argued with the revert. I'm quite calm about it, and don't feel that strongly about it, however else other editors might feel. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Tryptofish: A) I didn't shout. B) I don't criticise typos; they rarely matter out of article space. C) You quote the nomination. He says, "...several leading newspapers have acknowledged and acted on." These two articles were presumably what he was referring to. So it's in lime (sic'kening!) with what the nom actually wants to keep the material in, surely? FTR, as far as feeling strongly goes, neither of us have bludgeoned the process as others have, so <Ode to Joy/>, and all that! Serial 19:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I want to note that we now have gotten consensus (I think) for a shorter version that omits the scandal entirely. If that doesn't get reverted, I feel that it removes all concerns about unfavorable material on the page, and that would make me a stronger keep. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Since when do we remove unfavourable material becuase of "concerns"? If the subject is notable, and sourcing is available, they get an article. Any notable and sourced content related to the subject should be included in said article, regardless if an WP-user, or the BLP subject themseleves, likes it or not. The creation and retention of these articles needs to be done without passion or prejudice, and according to the policies & guidelines of this project. Some people should really re-think their !votes and their comments here. (imo) - wolf 05:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Tryptofish, are you saying there’s now a consensus to eliminate all mention of General Bell’s getting cashiered and the reasons for it? I don’t see it.
  
  I believe any article about this person should include this information, whether the General likes it or not. Furthermore, the fact that he’s used SPAs and a disingenuous appeal for pity to manipulate Wikipedia makes me implacably opposed to editing to make the subject look better. We report what’s properly referenced, period.
  
  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll point you to the talk page for the article. There is an active discussion, and I said that I hope that there is a consensus that will hold. The place to discuss it is at the talk page. For what it's worth, I will strongly oppose the argument that you are making here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 13 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!} 06:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Crate

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

Non-notable cartoonist / musician / producer. Natg 19 (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Comics and animation, United States of America, and California. Natg 19 (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any reliable sources on this person. There is this ([25]) from the Washoe County Library System, but It appears to have used information provided by Wikipedia. Non-notable cartoonist, musician, and producer that fails WP:GNG. FatCat96 (talk) 15:35, 7 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. ✗plicit 06:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Cremeans

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

Television personality of questionable notability as a host of different home shopping networks. Natg 19 (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Business. Natg 19 (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 6 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. ✗plicit 06:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dillon

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Illinois. Natg 19 (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not found any source till now Worldiswide (talk) 03:15, 9 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 List of Taylor Swift live performances. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift as an opening act

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

Not sure if this satisfies WP:NPOV because: (1) this covers a very short duration of Taylor Swift's career (2006-2008 vs. 2006-present), and (2) this sort of information can be safely incorporated into the existing List of Taylor Swift live performances. Ippantekina (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ippantekina (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I mentioned in the talk page, the article for her live performances is very long and I believe this is notable enough for its own article. The article is for her whole career, the reason it only covers 2006-2008 is because that is the time period where Swift was an opening act; she has not been one since then. Sammyrayy (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - as an unneeded fork and an unlikely search term. As the nominator notes, this can be covered in Swift's live performance article. Any other content about what her early career was like can be covered in her bio article. Ultimately, there is nothing which would dictate that this particular group of performances has standalone notability. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into her main article is fine. I'd !keep this if it was more substantive, it's basically just a long list/chart with some prose. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Taylor Swift live performances. Her gigography is not extensive at all, 245 references sounds OK considering it is a list article. I additionally suggest looking List of Coldplay live performances for a possible option in how pre-fame shows can be catalogued. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above and delete. A list of who Swift opened for and when is fine but not each date broken down and not in a stand-alone list. This amounts to an amalgamation of the primarys acts' tour sets parsed out for Swift's appearances without any details on Swift's contributions to the tours themselves. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Ippantekina. This is not the case where the daughter article is of a widely covered topic. The mother article can accommodate this one.

ℛonherry☘ 13:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The page could very easily be incorporated into the list of live performances. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:18, 13 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. ✗plicit 06:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abaïna Louis

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

The subject has earned at least two caps for the Haiti women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Haiti. JTtheOG (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:05, 6 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. ✗plicit 06:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yvrase Gerville

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

The subject has earned at least eight caps for the Haiti women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Haiti. JTtheOG (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:05, 6 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 Computer terminal. I don't know how to carry out a closure for a "Split" which doesn't appear as an option. Also, we also can not Merge to nonexisting articles so please do not suggest this unless you are willing to create those articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

System console

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

An article one month shy of TWENTY years old, without a single source, and tagged for WP:OR. I don't see any chance of rehabilitating this article such that it can be considered reliable to any degree. It's interesting - but one can only guess if any of the info is actually true or accurate. Computer terminal seems to cover the concept in a more structured manner, albeit with problems of its own... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any particular problems with accuracy here, but it does focus mostly on terminal-like consoles which are already discussed well in Computer terminal. There's more of a distinction for early computers where the console was a panel of lights and switches rather than a terminal. One way to address this would be to add a paragraph about early computers' consoles to Computer terminal, and then turn this into a redirect? Adam Sampson (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could certainly provide some sources, but IMHO the material should be split between Console (hardware) and Console (software), possibly as sections of Front panel and Computer terminal, with suitable {{distinguish}} templates. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's sufficiently covered by the relevant console articles as above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NO sourcing, odd. 2004 was a fun time in Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the material on hardware consoles is present in Front panel. I believe that a split and merge would be more appropriate than a delete. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Split and merge would be fine, too. System consoles are low-level direct interfaces to the OS and and/or hardware, especially useful for investigating the state of the system and recovering from problems when higher level interfaces are having troubles. The system console interface can be through a modern text terminal, but it doesn't have to be--it could be through a teletype or a specialized front panel. A quick search shows some online materials [26], [27], [28], and I am sure that are many paper sources out there on the system consoles in the older computer systems. Basic facts are verifiable, so a merge is a reasonable alternative to deletion, per our policy (WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE). It would be a little strange to discuss the system console concept only in the articles on the different kinds of interface the system console can be instantiated on, but that approach could work with a DAB page pointing to the different interface articles. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I believe this may be the first time I've formally proposed a deletion in about eighteen years here. I'm interesting only in good sourcing and relevance, and minimizing unnecessary duplication. Delete, merge - I'm amenable to whatever comes about, and I'm not locked onto any desired outcome. My first system console was a true paper TTY, so this is not for any lack of love for system consoles... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 08:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm fine with a split/merge as discussed above.

Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 10 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!} 05:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IME Group

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

Nominator's rationale: I am nominating this article for deletion because the subject does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies and organizations. The article has been tagged with multiple issues since April 2015, including notability concerns, lack of citations, cleanup requirements, and bare URLs. There has been no significant improvement over the years. Lack of Notability: The article predominantly cites primary sources or unreliable sources to establish notability. For instance:

The reference to the company's revenue points to the organization's homepage, which cannot be considered an independent reliable source. The assertion that IME Group owns the biggest Money Transfer Company and Fintech IMEPay in Nepal is referenced by the company's own website. The claim about Hem Raj Dhakal's position on the Board of Directors in South Korea references a LinkedIn profile, a self-published source. Sparse Independent Coverage: Though the company might have received some recognition in Nepal, the article does not provide substantial coverage from independent and reliable sources to establish its significance beyond routine business activities.

Promotional Tone: The article appears to be written in a promotional tone, mentioning awards and achievements without critically assessing their significance or relevance. While the article mentions Chandra Prasad Dhakal receiving an award from the Prime Minister of Nepal and mentions the establishment of the "Biggest Bank In terms of Capital GlobalIME Bank Ltd.", it does not delve into any context or significance of these achievements.

Unutilized references: There are unused references at the bottom of the article that either do not support the content or are not integrated into the article. This indicates a lack of proper sourcing and article structure.

General Cleanup Issues: The article has been flagged for cleanup and rewriting since September 2021, and it appears these issues have not been addressed.

In light of the above, I suggest that the article does not meet the notability guidelines for companies and should be considered for deletion unless reliable, third-party sources can be provided to establish its significance. Expressive101 (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nepal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question What would an adequate source for a Nepalese business look like? BHC (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 6 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!} 06:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Karagöz

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 17:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Kadı Message 17:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, and Turkey. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mongolia, Jordan, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a story about a talk he gave: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkiye/need-for-effective-communication-by-governments-stressed-at-global-summit/2754671 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Subject clearly meets WP:GNG criteria with lots of Turkish articles about him and his activities. I have added a couple of them to the article. Kind regards. Wikipractitioner (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC) <-- Confirmed sock of User:TEB001 Aintabli (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aintabli (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Hope to see some editors join this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be enough secondary sources with independent significant coverage already cited in the article to pass WP:GNG. Without a source analysis from the nominator, I am not seeing a strong argument for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion rationale was that the article did not meet WP:GNG. With the 11 sources (up from 5 at nomination) currently in the article, it meets GNG. Jacona (talk) 17:10, 6 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!} 03:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's Call Fund

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

Fails WP:NCORP (or perhaps WP:NONPROFIT, though it's not clear whether this is/was a nonprofit organization). Sources are primary, regurgitated press releases, local coverage, or non-significant coverage. WP:BEFORE found no suitable sources with which to improve the article. The "official website" is now domain squatted, so I think the organization is defunct and unlikely to receive any significant future coverage. Jfire (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jfire (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the sourcing requirements at WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Created against a COI by user Stravensky, who stated, The four pages I have had affiliation with are Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement, Sanford Greenberg, Janice Bryant Howroyd, and Earth’s Call Fund.[29] See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Stravensky --Hipal (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 08:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References on the page fail WP:ORGCRIT. A quick search for other sources failed to find anything that does. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 10 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. ✗plicit 02:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onawa Lacy

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant winner. Some minor, trivial coverage exists as the winner of Miss New Mexico USA but that is WP:BLP1E at best. Let'srun (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New Mexico. Let'srun (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 6 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!} 02:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government Junior College, Gubbi

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. I still believe there is no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find any WP:SIGCOV to back up this one sentence unsourced thingy, making the school fail WP:NSCHOOL. The Banner talk 13:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks references to support. - Indefensible (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Vegas in Space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip R. Ford

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

Non-notable film producer / drag entertainer. Seems like his film Vegas in Space and drag queen Doris Fish are notable, but he may not be. Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sexuality and gender. Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vegas in Space or delete. I've not been able to turn up any in-depth coverage of Ford himself. His blog post on the making of Vegas in Space suggests this was the event he'd best be known for, so I doubt I'm missing some alternative search terms. I requested Craig Seligman's recent biography of Doris Fish from my local library. If it yields anything major about Ford, I'll get back to you (though I'm mostly intending to add to the articles on Fish and the film). Ajpolino (talk) 06:42, 6 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!} 01:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Grissom

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

Much like the case of Sara Sidle, this article was also previously a Good Article. I am now nominating this for deletion because of:

poor sourcing: Most of the article is unsourced or sourced to either primary sources or plot summaries. For example, the reception section, which is the most important part of the article because it proves notability, is sourced to primary sources. The Fanfiction claim is sourced to the actual Fanfiction.net page, the website claim is sourced to two fan blogs, the miniature model claim is sourced to the actual Ebay page.
Not being notable: back to the reception section, the last paragraph does give some glimmers of notability. However, I don't think it is enough to pass GNG. The showrunner considers him to be the center of the show and the character is featured in many character lists, but I would say these are passing mentions of the character and do not give enough SIGCOV to prove notability. His final episode as a regular attracting a lot of views also does not prove notability. A quick Google search only gives passing mentions in plot summaries.

There are other problems, such as original research (ex. Parallels with Sherlock Holmes section) and WP:CRUFT, but the two I mentioned are the most important. I can elaborate on the points mentioned above if you wish, but I do not want the nomination message to be too long. I ask that people who wish to keep the article give sources that significantly covers the character from a real-world perspective (no plot summaries or brief mentions) and people who wish to delete the article consider voting a merge and/or redirect to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Spinixster (chat!) 01:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 01:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character has been the subject of enough commentary in independent secondary sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. See:

Byers, Michele; Johnson, Val Marie (2009-08-16). The CSI Effect: Television, Crime, and Governance. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-3927-1. — this book has extensive commentary on the character starting on page 186.
Kompare, Derek (2011-02-25). CSI. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-4152-2. — contains extensive discussion and critical commentary on the character.
Foss, Katherine (2009-04-15). "Gil Grissom and His Hidden Condition: Constructions of Hearing Loss and Deafness in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation". Disability Studies Quarterly. 29 (2). doi:10.18061/dsq.v29i2.921. ISSN 2159-8371. — academic paper examining the portrayal of hearing loss and deafness by Grissom's character
"Let's try to ID the bodies". Tampa Bay Times. 2002-02-07. p. 26. Retrieved 2023-10-06. — has details about how Petersen came to be cast as Grissom.
Pearson, Roberta Ellen (January 2007). "Anatomising Gilbert Grissom: The Structure and Function of the Televisual Character". Reading CSI. doi:10.5040/9780755696208.ch-003. — can't see the text but looks like another academic analysis

These sources establish that the subject has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that for those who wish to add the fifth source to the article should not be used using the link provided due to Researchgate being deemed unreliable at WP:RSP, but this [30] can be used instead. Spinixster (chat!) 06:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jfire. There are more questionable articles on CSI characters, but this character is clearly historically notable. BD2412 T 03:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per sources posted above.4meter4 (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Byers and Kompare also have in-depth coverage of Sara Sidle. There is also this journal article where her character has coverage. @Liz I am wondering if the outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Sidle would have been different had these sources been produced at that AFD. Would there be a way to re-open that discussion?4meter4 (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fulfills WP:SIGCOV. Deletion is not the answer. Reference improvement is the primary complaint, so let's request that.--SidP (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Okay, this is for sure the character that cannot be separated from the main list. Per Jfire's sources that fulfill your need of a real-world perspective, but also from within the 12 years Gil was shown at some point during the series, there is beyond the WP:SIGCOV necessary to have this article exist. Deletion is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No need to delete, there is sigcov. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bojo (band)

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Article was challenged for references since 2019. No good hits on GNews and GNews Archives. Note that you will get false positives from Bojo Molina, a Filipino actor and musician during your search. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND per nom. No sources about the band during my WP:BEFORE. SBKSPP (talk) 00:21, 8 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Collins

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

Notable for winning Survivor: Cambodia. Sure, he debuted with his wife as players of Survivor: San Juan del Sur, but I don't think they're notable for that, especially since neither of them won that season. Neither losing Survivor: Winners at War nor appearing on The Price Is Right helps either. If neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E applies, how about WP:PAGEDECIDE instead?

I seek this article to be redirected to either Survivor: Cambodia (his winning season), Survivor: San Juan del Sur (his debut season), or List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants, either potential target I'm fine with, honestly. George Ho (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and American football. George Ho (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the Survivor bit, but he's certainly not notable based on playing in the Professional Indoor Football League. Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a Survivor winner, then appearing on two other Survivor series and the Price is Right appearance, establish multi-topic notability. A well-known participant in the overall series. Seeing that there are multiple suggesions in the nom for where to "redirect" this, there is nothing broken here and the subject is deserving of his own page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know secondary or tertiary reliable sources verifying his notability other than his Cambodia season win? I have a hard time believing that those TV appearances shall suffice. George Ho (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding multiple suggestions about retargeting this article, I most likely prefer it redirected to Survivor: Cambodia, the season where he won, but I'm also fine with it retargeted to either alternative destination. Furthermore, as already determined, appearing twice or more on TV doesn't sufficiently make one notable. George Ho (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Some coverage exists on the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what coverage you mean. I see recaps of his three Survivor appearances. Regarding sources, I'm unsure whether coverage is adequate to save this article, notable or not. This magazine article is primarily an interview with this winner. This news article recaps how he played enough to go further and win the game. This news article just covers updates about his family life. Great news honestly, but can it save this biographical article's fate? Can the rest? (Don't get me started on a Twitter post.) George Ho (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Local coverage [31], here [32], the usual interviews in People [33] and this in Heavy.com [34]. I think with what's already in the article, it's just barely enough.Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to Survivor: Cambodia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between Redirection and Keeping the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are trivial or routine press release/advertising coverage of someone who was on a notable TV show, not significant coverage of a notable individual. There's no notability directly inherited from the TV show, even if they won it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Well, now it's divided between redirection, keep, and deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Macktheknifeau: As alternative to deletion, to which target do you want the page to redirect? --George Ho (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b and Sportsfan 1234: Do you stand by your "weak keep" votes, or do you have no objections to the page being redirected? If the latter, which destination? --George Ho (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, still a !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough for an article. There isn't a need to redirect. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor: Cambodia: Sources fails to live up to the needs of the WP:golden rule. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'golden rule', you linked to an opinion essay (which is balanced by Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD). I'll link to another essay, WP:RULEOFTHUMB, which also fits this discussion's distribution of editor opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. The essay is fine. We need WP:SIGCOV from sources that are WP:IS and WP:RS. This article's subject fails to have that. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 00:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulzara Singh Mann

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS Patr2016 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He participated, and? Fullstop. Doesn't meet WP:NATH and GNG. The only reliable source that merely mentions him talks about his participation at the 1952 Games in one line. zoglophie^•talk• 10:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Demon's Game: Episode 1

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

I couldn't find a single source that was reliable or even situational. Drew James (the Medium self-published review used in the article) doesn't seem to have any professional experience, and the CFN Gaming review is only two paragraphs long and also by Drew James. QuietCicada (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Patently non-notable, fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cut and dry case of non-notability where no reliable secondary sources are used. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Cabrera

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least two caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 10:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject has appeared in their national team and played in the country's top division. These attributes alone give her a pass even though WP:GNG might not be easily met. This is one reason we have stubs. -The Gnome (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers - the player section of WP:FOOTYN is superseded by WP:NSPORT and I find no evidence of passing NSPORT. She is mentioned once in passing in El Salvador but that's it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Heaven (Miliyah Kato album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last Love (Miliyah Kato song)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010 and unsourced. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kato's discography page, the song appeared on three Japanese charts. I could only find a source for Oricon but that's already a good sign. Didn't find anything else, though this certainly requires a good look through Japanese-language sources that I don't have access to. If nothing else turns up, redirect to Heaven (Miliyah Kato album). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miliyah Kato where its mentioned. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 07:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different redirect targets have been proposed...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. With two different Redirect targets suggested, this could come down to a closer flipping a coin. Please come to some agreement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heaven (Miliyah Kato album). I believe it's standard to redirect to the album. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:54, 7 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. There seems to be a consensus to Delete this article. Any editor can create a Redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Language tax

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Dict def. I could support a redir to economics of language. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Politics. UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think this falls under a DICDEF (and I say this as someone who's pretty inclined to label things as DICDEFs when I think they are). There's an underlying concept here, which is being identified, but it's a stub, so it's certainly not going to be a lot more than that. As for if it should be kept, deleted, or merged...I'm less sure about that, but just being "tagged for notability since 2010" isn't really a sufficient argument. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article appears to be primarily about Van Parijs' idea for a tax to be paid by countries using widespread languages such as English, to countries using less common languages. The pdf-file by Van Parijs listed in the link is a draft, not a final peer reviewed article. I Googled to see if the article has been referenced, and it seems to have been published in "The challenge of multilingualism in law and politics" in 2005, but I am unsure if that is an obscure journal or a book, and if it is peer-reviewed. In any case, there is no evidence that Van Parijs proposal has gained any traction among policy makers, or been the subject of any substantial analysis by other authors, so lack of notability is a major issue. The second and third references are in the final paragraph that describes the "analogous concept" that non-English speaking countries are at a disadvantage, but connecting this to Van Parijs' idea for a monetary tax is original research by synthesis. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; possibly merge or redirect to Economics of language. Work on the economic and social justice effects of languages certainly exists – in addition to Van Parijs see for example economist Francois Grin and perhaps linguists such as Ingrid Piller or Claire Kramsch. The notion of a "language tax" as such doesn't seem terribly influential, but I think there is room to keep some version of this. Cnilep (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's a neat concept/word but it doesn't seem to have been widely adopted. If there was an article about it in a RS, it would be clear keep but without it, hard. No results when looking on Google Scholar, Google News, it's not even widely talked about as "language tax" by the person who supposedly coined it. Not much valuable content would be lost.AncientWalrus (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There appears to be some usage of the term in Gscholar, but seems to be about simplification of tax laws; I'm not sure what this is exactly. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 6 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Tasker (YouTuber)

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

No SIGCOV or RS presented in this article about a YouTuber and children's TV presenter, none found in a WP:BEFORE. There is simply not enough to get beyond WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage here [35] and [36]. I think it's at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I initially draftified this article because it was not properly written. But, on cusory search I found some sources that could be used, some of which Oaktree mentioned above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All we scare up are a trivial news item about Tasker coming out as gay, which fair play to the lad, but were it not for that, there would be no new item. Plus, a routine report, in its enthusiasm verging on advertorializing, about a CBBC show having Tasker as host. Where is the "significant", "third-party," "independent" coverage? Graciously, another case of a premature rush to thet stage. And the fact that the article has been curated mostly by a mostly monomaniac account does not help its case. -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 8 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!} 00:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Logan (Law & Order)

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

Many sources in the article are primary, there's a reception section but it only lists the award that the actor won for playing the role, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Law & Order characters. Spinixster (chat!) 03:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 03:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article has no sources that indicate any notability. Ping me if any are found. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the sources found by BD2412, I am switching to weak keep. The sources aren't perfect, but they are good enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this AFD as a Redirect but have been asked to revert and relist due to low participation. So, I'll do so. But I think my closure was valid at the time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per additional sources that I have found and added within the past hour. @QuicoleJR: I am continuing to work on this, but I think there is sufficient discussion in the works provided to establish notability of the character. BD2412 T 00:46, 6 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!} 00:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Gray syndrome

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

This syndrome was first described by Brosig, Kupfer, Niemeier, and Gieler in 2000/2001,^[1] and again by the same authors in a 2006 book edited by Trüeb.^[2] The only significant coverage (in reliable sources) that I can find on the subject is in works authored or co-authored by Brosig, Gieler or Trüeb. These sources are not independent of the subject, and therefore do not contribute to notability per WP:GNG.

Searching for sources is complicated by the fact that "Dorian Gray syndrome" is a fairly obvious expression (like Peter Pan syndrome, Alice in Wonderland syndrome, etc.) which has been thought up independently by different people and given a variety of different meanings. The article, however, describes a very specific phenomenon, and we need sources that discuss this phenomenon in depth. As I say, I couldn't find any reliable sources that I felt were both in-depth and independent, though it's possible that German-speaking editors may have better luck. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

References

^ I think this is a copy of the original German paper, "Das Dorian Gray-Syndrom: Haarwuchsmittel und andere 'Jungbrunnen' [The Dorian Gray Syndrome: Hair restorers and other fountains of youth]". The 2001 paper (doi:10.5414/CPP39279) appears to be an English translation of the former; I can't access it but this website hosts a copy of it.
^ doi:10.1007/978-3-7985-1637-3_18 – accessible through the Wikipedia Library (link). I think this source is what the third bullet point in the "Further reading" section is referring to.

Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Psychiatry. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see a German-language publication at https://www.google.com/books/edition/Forever_young/6umyNwAACAAJ?hl=en and a pretty good description in https://www.google.com/books/edition/Psychosomatische_Dermatologie/RWIhBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA50&printsec=frontcover There are a few paragraphs in https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ästhetische_und_plastische_Operationen/UjjNP2Ujb4gC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="Dorian+Gray-Syndrom"&pg=PA3 There is one paragraph in https://www.google.com/books/edition/Enzyklop%C3%A4die_der_Eponymen_Syndrome_und/BiGQDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA74 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hauterkrankungen/bpubEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA197 only has a sentence, but puts it in the context of seeking cosmetic treatments. The paragraph in https://www.google.com/books/edition/Wenn_das_Spiegelbild_zur_Qual_wird/6p2bEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT12 places it in the context of Body dysmorphic disorder and specifically the excessive use of lifestyle medicine to fulfill a wish to always be young. I think it's probably notable. (All of the sources are in German, and it would be easier to use them if you can read at least a little German.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just to note, your second and fifth links are to books edited by Uwe Gieler, who I noted above is not an independent source. The remainder don't appear to give anything more than a basic definition. The exception is the first link, Forever Young! by Reese, which looks more promising, but I can't access it. It's marked up as a dissertation by WorldCat, so I'm not sure to what extent it can be considered a secondary source. I can view the blurb on Amazon; the author seems to be advancing the thesis that Dorian Gray Syndrome can also occur in children. We can probably assume that the work contains a decent amount of secondary information on the syndrome as described by Brosig et al., and if so then I'd be willing to consider this as one source contributing to notability, but without access to it I can't be certain. I don't believe any of your other links constitute significant independent coverage. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist given the recent sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom, this fail WP:GNG even with the additionally listed sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 10 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.

[1] For instance, recently I rewrote an article Timurid invasion of Simsim which was almost completely, if not completely, based on folklore and incorrect information. Here Alaexis noticed made up battle between Simsim and Timurids near modern day Grozny which in reality wasn't mentioned in primary sources (Zafarnama by Nizam al-Din Shami and the Zafarnama by Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi) and I quickly removed it.

[2] See Zafar-Namē by Shami and Zafar-Namē by Yazdi.

[3] Same Murtazaliev (Муртазалиев, В. К вопросу об истории государства и права чеченцев) source used here that I mentioned above: "His ancestry and genealogy were studied by the Sadoy clan historian Murtazaliev who did fieldwork in Chechnya during 1991–1999 by interviewing several Sadoy clan elders." Considering he's from Sadoy clan himself, obviously not a WP:NPOV source. Interviewing Sadly clan elders about a figure on whom we don't know much and who was from 14th century isn't a good source to learn from but it's fine for Murtazaliev.

[4] I think this is a copy of the original German paper, "Das Dorian Gray-Syndrom: Haarwuchsmittel und andere 'Jungbrunnen' [The Dorian Gray Syndrome: Hair restorers and other fountains of youth]". The 2001 paper (doi:10.5414/CPP39279) appears to be an English translation of the former; I can't access it but this website hosts a copy of it.

[5] :10.1007/978-3-7985-1637-3_18 – accessible through the Wikipedia Library (link). I think this source is what the third bullet point in the "Further reading" section is referring to.

[a]

[b]

[a]

[1]

[2]