Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 29	January 31 >

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 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 23:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Rishchynski

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

Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Article based solely on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'll also note PROD is not for cleanup, so not sure the case Charles Matthews is making here with respect to process Star Mississippi 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accident of birth

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

Little more than a dictionary definition Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Herbert Spiegelberg found something to say about J. S. Mill's use of the concept, in discussing egalitarianism.[1] The English term seems to have been introduced by Mill and Herbert Spencer.[2] John D. Caputo found something to say when discussing Heidegger.[3] Ágnes Heller took it as a starting point. [4] Suggests to me that the concept is probably notable. Cf. WP:BEFORE. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the references above and now in the article are being taken in the sense of WP:GNG as trivial mentions in the sense of WP:SIGCOV, then I have to say I disagree. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest userfy the article. It is not in good shape now, clearly, but also I think deletion would be harsh. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I commend on your enthusiasm, but you just was well can restart it in your user space. There is nothing to salvage from article history.- Altenmann >talk 04:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments below do not add up to a reason to delete under policy. The article can be fixed up by normal editing; the nomination for deletion here of such articles is problematic. AfD is not a cleanup mechanism, and should not be used as such: try PROD. I'd like to have the article userfied so that I can do a proper job of researching it, rather than trying to get it over some nominal bar in a sprint over a few days. The OED reference to Algernon Sidney's Discourses is to a work that gets 40 page references in the index to Blair Worden's Roundhead Reputations; so is worth amplification. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is OR about a concept which does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. Llajwa (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete without prejudice for recreation. The definition is dubious OR. But the phrase does have reasonable refs. - Altenmann >talk 04:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of colleges and institutions affiliated to Anna University#Coimbatore Region as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 01:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King College of Technology

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

Totally uncited (no references). Looks promotional i.e advertising (may be by the college). Clearly not notable. Article on Anna University already exists. TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to List of colleges and institutions affiliated to Anna University#Coimbatore Region where it's listed, should sources not be located. Despite longstanding tags no suitable references have been added and there's been reversions in the article history for promotional content. Rupples (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus about insufficient sourcing for this BIO includes even the Keep view. Owen× ☎ 01:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mampuzha Madhava Panicker

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

I couldn't find evidence that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, though as I can only read English, I may be missing something. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now get this resolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - insufficiently sourced, but Kathakali dance is an important South Indian classical dance form revived in the early to mid 20th century and winning the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award is a big deal. I think it would be a mistake to delete this biographical information, which is not duplicated in any other language on WP. Llajwa (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Normally at least leads can be found on at least one other lang wiki but here nothing. Ping me if sources are found, I'm open to a redirect if sources can be found showing that the redirect is appropriate. // Timothy :: talk 18:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 23:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Tunisia relations

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

Most of this article is based on a primary source, the Azerbaijan Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There are no aspects to these relations that add to notability like embassies, state visits, significant trade or migration. The 2 cultural aspects mentioned seem to be minor factoids. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Tunisia, and Azerbaijan. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There does not seem to be WP:SIGCOV that could establish notability. Yilloslime (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Buckhout

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

Non-notable congressional candidate with zero in-depth national news coverage. Does not meet notability requirements of WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Getting mentioned in a few articles by local outlets shouldn't be enough to get a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, Military, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We go through this every few years. WP:POLITICIAN: Just being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. In other words: get elected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don Davis (North Carolina politician) was sworn in a year ago this month as the elected representative from that district. She is announcing her 2025 run for that same office. Go to her personal website linked in the naxbox and click on her website link. — Maile (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that I did not write this article as a promotional piece. I am not a Republican. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and change my Delete to Comment. — Maile (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my view, WP:PROMOTION can be unrelated to the intention of an editor, and can instead happen when a subject engages in promotional activities without significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. When sources tend to be brief, based on quotes or interviews, a non-independent profile and a campaign website, deletion also seems supported by the second part of the WP:N guideline, as WP:NOTPROMO (and WP:DEL-REASON#14). Beccaynr (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’m a newbie here. I went to her Wikipedia page to find information that was not available elsewhere on the net to help inform me about the primary election. What’s currently on this Wikipedia page seems fact-based and is very helpful to me. FACTSMATTER01 (talk)< — Preceding unsigned comment added by FACTSMATTER01 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how that's relevant. Per WP:NPOL, being a candidate in an election is not enough for a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a search engine, it's an encyclopedia of notable people and events. If Buckhout loses this election, I doubt this page will be useful to anyone. People who want to learn about Buckhout can simply read her campaign website. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL does not exclude any one. It just grants 'presumed notability' to elected politicians at state level and above, that's all.Djflem (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the fact that she clearly fails NPOL doesn't necessarily mean she's not notable. The reason she's not notable is because she fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage from national outlets. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a clear when the nomination was made, so mention of NPOL is redundant.Djflem (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

\ Djflem (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by, but Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts. Subjects must meet a certain set of notability criteria before an article can be made about them. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to notability as a female military officer, not as a political candidate. I've added more sources to the article regarding her role as the first Chief of the U.S. Army's Electronic Warfare Division. Here are some more sources (mostly from the late 2000s, so not in connection with political campaigning) detailing her role as Chief of the Electronic Warfare Division, and as a military consultant, that have not yet been added to the article: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the difference between these sources and the ones that were already cited on the article. It's just more minor, non-national outlets, and few of these sources give in-depth coverage of Buckhout specifically. Leading a minor branch of the Army doesn't automatically make you notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there does not appear to be support for notability in significant coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources; coverage tends to be brief and often based on quotes or interviews. Beccaynr (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge for coverage as US Army Officer (as above) or to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina where she is already mentioned. Djflem (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources above seem to offer limited support for notability, including because of often being based on quotes or interviews without secondary coverage of Buckhout, or otherwise lacking independence or indications of reliability:
- The Feb. 25, 2009 Associated Press/NBC News source, "Army updates plans for electronic warfare" is not about Buckhout; it includes two quotes from her as "chief of the Army's electronic warfare division in Washington, D.C."
- The Aug 2, 2015 Defense News source, "Electronic Warfare: What US Army Can Learn From Ukraine" is not about Buckhout; it includes quotes from her as a "former chief of the US Army's electronic warfare division, now CEO of the Corvus Group"
- The Mar 2009 Defense Visual Information Distribution Service source, "Technology, Threats Accelerate Army Focus on Ground Electronic Warfare" appears to be a public domain press release, and is not about Buckhout; there are quotes from her as "chief of the Army's Electronic Warfare Division in the Operations, Readiness and Mobilization Directorate." This source states, "In 2006, Buckhout stood up the Army's Electronic Warfare Division"
- The Oct 10, 2017 Defense News source, "Eyeing Russia, lawmakers aim to boost Army electronic warfare" is not about Buckhout, it includes quotes from her as "Former U.S. Army’s electronic warfare division chief [...] now with The Corvus Group"
- The Feb 21, 2020 C4ISRNET source, "Getting the services on the same wavelength about electronic warfare" is not about Buckhout, it has quotes from her as "chief executive and president of the Corvus group and a retired Army colonel who specialized in electronic warfare".
- The Feb. 23, 2007 defense-aerospace.com source "Army Upgrades Its Electronic Warfare Training" is a marked as a reprinted press release. It is not about Buckhout, but has quotes from her.
- The Jan 30, 2018 National Defense Magazine source "Army Merging Electronic Warfare, Cyber Ops" is not about Buckhout, but has quotes from her as "retired Col. Laurie Moe Buckhout, who now serves as the president and CEO of the Corvus Group, a Virginia-based consulting firm"
- The Feb 25/26 2009 Associated Press/Herald Tribune source, "Army boosts focus on electronic warfare" is a reprint of the AP/NBC News source listed above.
- The James Madison University source "Military Science (Army ROTC) Alumni" is one of the schools Buckhout attended. This source offers a more specific date (June 2006) of her assignment as "Chief, Electronic Warfare Division, Army Operations, Readiness and Mobilization" than other sources, but is not independent support for notability.
- The 'Federal News Network' source is probably not reliable based on the overall website, and the brief report mentions Buckhout with a quote.
- SC Magazine is churnalism from the 2015 Defense News source; the overall appearance of this website is questionable.
- The Feb 26 2009 Associated Press/Fox News source is a reprint of the AP/NBC and AP/Herald Tribune sources noted above.
- The Jan 3 2007 UPI source, "U.S. Army trains troops for electronic war is not about Buckhout; she is quoted as "chief of the Army's Electronic Warfare Division" and this source restates what is reported in the Army Times.
Beccaynr (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per beccaynr's analysis. Agreed that the sources above are inadequate in significance and/or independence for GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus reached despite brevity in the replies; also, the article has developed from the version that was nominated, which was merely 15 minutes old at the time. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Casey (American football)

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

Non notable coach. After a search I could only find primary sources of athletic departments and one from the oregonlive{.}com. No SIGCOV and in-depth coverage Grahaml35 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More sources have been added to the article that establish notability. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Jweiss. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Jweiss. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more sources have been added meets WP:GNG. Chaosbrigader64 (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Beer. Owen× ☎ 00:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premium Beer

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

I am proposing a Merge of this article to Beer. A standalone article isn't necessary or justified. There is no agreed definition of what "Premium beer" is; there is certainly no international agreement. Some of what's here is original research or opinion, and some is sourced to what is clearly AI-generated content - e.g., this article, used as a reference 7 times in the article. A more reliable reference describes the term as "nonsense". See also WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: While there are a few good sources included among the garbage, the lack of a formal definition of the term (and the fact that some of the sources contradict each other) suggests to me this topic isn't quite solid enough for its own article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain as a Standalone Article, But Improve Sourcing: Awesome discourse so far! Think that the right steps here are to maintain the article as a standalone, and just contribute to improving the sourcing. Rationale follows:

Whether or not we personally feel that this concept is subjective, does not change the fact that it is truly a proper term in the alcohol and beer industry. The term "premium beer" is used more than 500 to 1,000+ times across Wikipedia, including in the definitions used to describe several notable articles from Heineken to Old Speckled Hen to Red Stripe etc. This list grows if you include premium "ale" or premium "lager," which are also captured in this article

If we delete this article, then we are creating the potential misconception of the use of the term premium as simply being an adjective, across hundreds of articles. This poses a widespread neutrality issue, as in the absence of this article, the hundreds of articles that invoke this term do not adequately acknowledge that is it a nuanced indsutry term terminology, not an official title.

Merging this article to Beer does not adequately recognize the fact that in its usage, it is used to refer to a specific concept that goes deeper than just the concept of beer, just like how we have standalone articles for Craft beer for production process, or Draught beer for style of serving, Premium Beer explains the usage of the common phrase which describes tier of price/quality/AbV. The term premium has just as much usage as Draft or Craft, would we propose merging those to Beer as well?

As a final point, I don't think the rationale of sources contradicting with one another substantiates the merge/deletion - any proper term that describes a "tier" in an industry will always have sources contradicting to each other, just like Restaurant ratings it's just important that the article pays proper explanation/objectivity toward the key definitions/authorities. The article currently speaks to the nuance and interpretability of the concept, and does not asset a singular definition. Currently, across wikipedia, hundreds of articles assert that "XYZ is a premium beer" - the fact that definitions contradict with each other is even more reason that a central article explaining the nuance and interpretability is helpful.

For example, the term "5 Star Restaurant" is captured by our page Restaurant rating - however, the article explains how restaurant tier can vary based on source/authority, from Michelin, to Magazines, to even smaller local authorities. If Michelin were to review a restaurant and deem it 3 stars, a local authority deem it 1 star, and a Magazine deem it 5 stars, each using different criteria, we wouldn't throw out the concept of "5 star restaurants" and restaurant ratings because sources contradict each other, because despite its subjectivity across sources it remains a proper term within the restaurant industry. Premium beer is the same concept, and this article currently, at least, does seem to do a thorough job explaining the leading interpretations/criteria of "premium" status.

If we feel that the term "premium" is subjective and not a formal definition, then that challenges the neutrality of the usage of the term in over 1,000 beer articles across the platform. (listed below)

Recommendation: Believe the path forward isn't deleting the article, but rather contributing to improving sourcing.

See below for a list of several articles which use the term premium, clearly referring to the industry-specfic concept, if the Premium Beer page is deleted, will now just become an adjective descriptor and challenge neutrality

1. Heineken 2. Old Speckled Hen 3.Phuket Beer 4. Kingfisher (beer) 5. 333 Premium Export Beer 6. Cobra Beer 7. Red Dog (beer) 8. Beer in Australia 9. Foster's Lager 10. Yuengling 11. Rolling Rock 12. James Boag's Premium 13. Beer in Mexico 14. Beer in Morocco and the list goes on.

As a first step in the right direction, I will work on improving some of the sourcing in the near term.

Andrewkazimi (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I realise you've put some work into the article, but your argument above is essentially that the term exists, and therefore should have a page. But WP:NOTDICTIONARY. And there is no one definition of what is a "premium" beer; anyone can legally call their product premium - and many do. Wikipedia reports on what the sources say. If sources describe Heineken as a premium lager, that's what we can call it. We don't call it one because it's > 4.5% ABV and therefore meets some definitions used in some places by some members of the brewing industry. (It's also only 4.3% in Ireland, so... not a premium lager?) See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to work on the article to include such things as no official definition, different ones in different places, use as marketing, etc., then the article could be draftified until ready for mainspace. As it stands, though, no, it's not ready. Any lager above 4.5% ABV is considered premium, and any ale above 4.2% ABV is considered premium. - says who? Apparently a company with a home brewing app? They source their article to one you've used multiple times in the article, the Morning Advertiser, a UK marketing company... See where I'm going with this? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Batsun! No, I think that's a bit of a minimization of my point, I'm happy to clarify. At this point I think let's give it some space for others to take a look, as I think we've both done a good job explaining our thought processes. As my final note

Updates to the Article** -- Significant expansion of sourcing, as well as tweaks to language to better address the nuance of the topic. The original source Batsun/others raised as being used several times is no longer there. Additional sources added showing usage of term all the way since 1940's.

Batsun, to address your point - no my argument isn't "The term exists so it should have a page" - and I think anyone reading this thread would agree that that's a bit of an intentional minimization.

My point is that this is a proper term in the alcohol industry, used Pervasively, used hundreds of times across wikipedia, and very easy to confuse someone unaware that it is an industry concept into thinking it's just an adjective (i.e. "Wow! all these brands are premium!")

The current article has taken steps forward in sourcing, and pays adequate attention to the informality of the definition, however the centrality of its usage in this indsutry and throughout the platform merits it being explained/contextualized.

To your point about 4.5% to 5% - sure, I think it's easy to make the point that you're making which is that different areas/sources have different thresholds for the %. However the principle stands, which is that one definition of premium is that the higher the AbV the more "premium" the brand is. The article has been amended to reflect that as opposed to set in stone % thresholds, thank you for that feedback.

As of next draft there is no source used "multiple times" and it's spread relatively evenly. I welcome any others to pitch in to editing the site, but I believe the current deletion tag should either be replaced with a tag to call for additional edits (if still necessary) or removed when we are satisfied. But I am of the mind that

A. The pervasiveness of this term merits the article, not just that "the term exists" - it is important and used colloquially and officially in the industry

B. Like any topic, you can point to a source that is uncredible, but the article has been amended to and includes much better sourcing that is credible. A call for improved sourcing is not a call for deletion.

C. I agree the original draft could have started in the draftspace, however, at this time the article is now much farther along and should be addressed where it is with any relevant edits. We should not be retroactively drafting it because it should have been drafted before. At this point it feels like many of the original qualms have been addressed

However, if Batsun has a more profound issue just with the belief that the concept of premium beer should not be described/explained on Wikipedia, and instead should just be used wherever it arises, then I defer to other members of the community to take a look here and pass judgment.

Thanks for all of the awesome discussion on this one! Has been very enjoyable learning more and thinking through your points. Andrewkazimi (talk • contribs) 18:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Even after reading all the above, I still think that it should be merged, but it should be a real merge with some of the article merged . Bduke (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Premium beer" is a notable term in the marketing industry, and, based on the present sourcing and other reliable sources, an article that is not a mere dictionary definition can be written about: (1) the different definitions of the term [18]; (2) consumer preference [19] [20] [21]; and (3) economics and market trends [22] [23]. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another source about premium as an image: [24] voorts (talk/contributions) 03:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a term used within the marketing industry. It would be well served by a one- or two-paragraph section within the Beer article, outlining a) that there's no agreed definition of what it actually means; b) the beer industry generally, though by no means universally, considers it to be to with ABV (and there is disagreement as to what that ABV point is); and c) others, especially marketers, ascribe other values to the term, though again, there is no agreement as to what those values might be. That would also allay the article creator's fears about "not having links from 'Heineken' and 'Fosters' challenging the article's neutrality" (?) as a section heading can be used as a wikilink. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you if only the definition were at issue, but we have reliable sources discussing consumer trends and economics of the premium market as well. The fact that a definition isn't agreed upon is not a reason to not write an article about something; indeed, that indicates that a topic requires more space to discuss, not an artificial two paragraph limit. Those disagreements are precisely why NPOV requires giving due weight to different views. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For me, this remains a clear keep. As others have pointed out, this term is dominant in the marketing industry, and the article goes on to cite several sources across fields that discuss the trend of premiumization in beer, including in Economics and Sociology... I just did a quick Wikipedia search of "Premium Beer" and I'm seeing it referenced over 1,200 times. Even more if I type in Premium Lager or Premium Ale. It's clear to me that:
- (A) This topic is pervasive both colloquially and across industries, and at least meets the threshold of notability for an article. To verify that, one can review the sources cited in the article, or perform a quick Google search.
- (B) A topic having "no universal definition" isn't reason for it not to have an article, in fact, if a term is extremely popular and widespread on top of having an ambiguous definition, that to me is even more reason for it to have an article, that way users can effectively read to understand the nuance, and not be confused or receive a positive bias when they see it used.
- (C) This topic is referenced some 1,000+ times across Wikipedia. This final point is a confluence of A and B. The term isn't just pervasive in marketing -- it's pervasive on our platform itself. The widespread use of this term across articles, in the absence of an article explaining what is means, given the positive connotation of the word premium represents a challenge to neutrality. We should have an article that makes it clear "hey, premium beer is a term that has various meanings, here are the considerations" because otherwise 1,200+ articles are just calling some beers premium while others not in a way that misinforms a reader and says "hey, this is a premium beer, this one is not, and that's a fact."

*Addressing "But premium beer has no universally agreed definition A term having "no universally agreed definition" is not a good reason for it to not have an article: that's just reason for any article that does exist, to appropriately address the nuances of its explanation.

**Addressing "Just put it as a sub paragraph within beer** A term used over 1,200 times across Wikipedia, with all of the usage we've seen across industries, seems to merit more than just a sub paragraph in an existing article.This is the same reason we have a separate article for Craft Beer or Draft Beer - they are dominant topics and capture nuances that just Beer doesn't.

This remains a clear keep for me for the reasons outlined above.

Andrewkazimi (talk) 16:07, 02 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bludgeon the process - I made my contribution above - but I am going to call out misinformation. The term "premium beer" is used 85 times on en.wikipedia, not 500, or 1,000+, or (now) 1,200 times across Wikipedia, as has been claimed above. And lastly, I don't think we need to say much more about premium beer except what's written here.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Please note that the above comment is from the article creator, who has already commented and !voted in the above debate, on 15th January.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Bastun's same spirit of not bludgeoning the process, want to call out that in his link he intentionally fenced the words around quotation marks, therefore it would exclude any articles that don't say exactly what he wrote. Therefore this excludes mention of "premium import beer" "premium priced beer" "premium domestic beer" et al. - which obviously all mean same thing.
Here's an unfenced link where you can see the >1,000+ #s I'm seeing. Looks higher than 85 to me :) Link [25]

The above link doesn't even include premium ale, premium lager, etc.

That's correct, I am the article creator-- but isn't that clear? I've signed all my messages with my name. Unsure point of calling that out: you are the original nominator for deletion, right?

Finally, on the point of "bludgeoning the process" which describes advancing one's point through volume of comments --- feel free to count up my # of comments, then count up his :)

Grateful for this stimulating discussion. Hoping everyone has a great day and kudos to the closer for weighing up everyone's thoughts equally. I believe we should take a uniform and objective approach to applying Wikipedia's goals of neutrality, and notability.

Andrewkazimi (talk) 19:07, 03 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I included the search term in quotation marks; that's literally how you ensure you're only returning results with the actual search term, and how you exclude false positives, such as phrases like "premium-priced beers", "non-premium lager", "Part of the so-called premium sector", or branded names such as 333 Premium Export Beer. And as of this comment, I will have made seven contributions to the page, at around 5.4kb, including the nomination. You are on over a dozen contributions, at 11.3kb, including two !votes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of you have been contributing productively to this discussion. Andrew's second !vote and @Bastun's second comment both appear to be responsive to my !vote; it's not bludgeoning to note your agreement or disagreement with another editor.

Regarding the two !votes, @Andrewkazimi: per WP:AFDFORMAT, "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line." I recommend keeping your original !vote bolded and un-bolding and striking the ~~keep~~. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. I think you hit the nail on the head with my intention. I'm approaching this with attempts of being objective / just having a constructive conversation. Think we should all take that approach, as you particularly have been. Thank you! Andrewkazimi (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete - appears to have been created as part of a paid promotional campaign. WP:DENY - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on that? The current article version doesn't look particularly promotional. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't correct. There is nothing promotional about an article about premium beer.... David took issue with another article of mine (a living biography) and then somehow came here to weigh in on a completely different topic. This is a bit of a frustrating aspect of the wikipedia community: we strive for objectivity, but in reality a lot the times decisions are made by senior editors throwing their weight around behind subjective decisions. Bastun is able to nominate the article for deletion becuase "no universal definition" of the term, when universal definitions are not a requisite of having an article, he then doubles down on the term only being used in marketing, and maintains his stance despite being shown examples of the term being cited outside of marketing. Mr. David Gerard flags the article as paid promotion, but doesn't expand on how/why. Much of the Wikipedia review process is kind of just senior editors forcing their opinions. I have deep respect for all who have contributed, and I encourage all to assess articles based on the actual content of the article... Andrewkazimi (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are now veering into personal attack territory. What I wrote is available in the nomination, above; don't try to put words in my mouth. Voorts, the current article doesn't look particularly promotional, but look at the history, including the recent addition of a "random" list of so-called "premium beers." Compare to Beer#"Premium"_beers - is there really that much more to be said? I mean... WP:NOPAGE exists for a reason! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe there is more to write, as I noted above. Per SS, there's enough to write on this topic such that it should be summarized in the main beer article and a child article created here. The trend of "premiumization" is a real phenomenon that can have a neutral, encyclopedic article written about it. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 23:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Blade (series)

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

Unnecessary "... (series)" article: there is Joe Blade and Joe Blade 2, Joe Blade 3 is a redirect. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a formal policy for series by notability, but I would assume that if sources aren't there to provide coverage on the background, development or assessment of the series as a whole, there is no notability for an article that purports to cover the series as a whole, even if its individual games are notable. Happy to strike this if someone does a WP:BEFORE and finds otherwise. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tekken 7. Provisionally, at least; there is a clear consensus to merge, but those who wished to do so were not terribly clear on where. If a better merge target exists instead of or in addition to the parent game, that of course is fine as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Chloe

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

No significant coverage among the article's total of 11 citations. Except for the Eurogamer piece, the half of that number that composes the reception section contains nothing of any substance. No notable results found in a new search, just a bunch of tier rankings and listicle content from nonviable VG sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lucky Chloe has at least three sources discussing her in a non-trivial way, all of which are already cited in the article. The Eurogamer pieces, as you mention, plus the Den of Geek and IGN pieces also noting the divisiveness of the character. And there's also this from ToonZone (now known as AnimeSuperhero), but was removed on the claims of unreliability. It has been discussed before, but discussion appear to be inconclusive. I think another discussion of that site is in order. Upon some Google searching, I also found this piece from Kotaku, which wasn't cited in the article, for some reason. Overall, she fulfills the main purpose for notability, more so than the average Tekken character. MoonJet (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToonZone (AnimeSuperHero) is a fan-run unreliable source. Trivial soundbites like "God I hate her already" and "Seems a little lazy" were taken from an unreliable source — a forum — to make a mountain out of a molehill; we're not exactly talking Jax's MK11 ending here. Den of Geek is promoting a trailer and using YouTube comments to stir up "controversy" where there isn't any. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I or we know that Lucky Chloe have been discussed at bunch of reliable sources per WP:BEFORE and some of it were mentioned above, but most were just only one time event and people moved on. There are no discussion about her since her reveal sadly. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 02:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The fact she's had little coverage after the initial hoopla has no bearing on her notability. MoonJet (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*::Weak Keep Changed my vote, due to additional sources that KFM provided below. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~CommentKeep~~ Digitally Downloaded.net has two articles that offer some discussion, and while it's not much on its own, it does offer some thoughts when combined as they're by the same author. Polygon mentioned the same thing Kotaku did, but brought it up again to segue into a discussion about sexist design in the franchise and Harada's approach to criticism. ~~Now you're probably wondering why I'm not voting Keep or even Weak Keep then. Well...the problem is that after this things run out of steam, and whats in the above isn't much either.~~ There are some bits here and there (I particularly like this bit from Maddy Myers for The Mary Sue), but boiled down it's hard to feel there'd be a proper reception section to explain why she's important/notable enough for an article, especially when some of this overlaps. ~~There's a start, but I feel without more it's not enough to reach the finish line. Based on the opinions of the other editors after I posted this, I feel more comfortable with a keep vote.~~--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first DD article is a brief mention of the fan reaction, while the second is a generic listicle offering no original insight about the character. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 08:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is true; the first source, while it covers the fan reaction, is also the author's reaction, and commentary about said reaction. The second, while indeed in a list format, I would disagree, as it comments on her design being a better fit for Dead or Alive. Not the most mindblowing stuff, but it's not nothing. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the sources provided by Moonjet and Kung Fu Man. Her divisive design elicited a lot of commentary from third parties. There's enough content to warrant not merging. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I tried to come in with an open mind and read all the sources. But even in the most lenient interpretation of notable, a few people complaining on NeoGAF does not indicate anything. A single now-defunct message board does not represent the feelings of fans at large, putting the idea that there is a "controversy" in doubt. Harada's views on critics belong in Harada's article or that of Tekken, perhaps in a "controversy" or "criticism" section. I typically look for indepth character analysis, either of their gameplay or story relevance, rather than a flash-in-the-pan burst of backlash from a vocal minority. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The coverage in the article appears to be trivial at best. There's barely anything in terms of controversy or reception on her design beyond one or two articles, and overall appears to be a rather minor character. That being said, there is some good stuff in here worth keeping, so a merge is warranted, in this case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though it's on the weaker end; however, it has enough meat for me to say keep. The negative reaction was strong enough to get an official response that was covered, which is not the most common. I'd like to see more commentary that's divorced from the controversy, but I feel this has shown sustained notability at the end of the day. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To clarify, looking at the article I thought there was more "meat" to it reception wise. However, after cleaning it up, it's definitely less than bare bones. While I'm all for a lower end of notability and discovering what that is, even with the sources I mentioned above you'd only get two more sentences, and with what's there it's just not enough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple more sources that were brought up in here, and found one from Christian Today and Game Rant (before being purchased by Valnet, no less). I think there's more than enough here, especially when you consider that most Tekken characters don't get this kind of attention. MoonJet (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moonjet, a lot of these are just saying the same thing and are primarily reactions to the initial event. The Kotaku ref isn't even being cited for that author's reception but the people online? And there is no way Christian Today is a reliable source from their About Us page alone...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn I've seen Christian Today somewhere in a reliable source list. Maybe I was thinking of a different Christian site. The Kotaku source also gives reactions to what people say online, and goes beyond just simple recitings, so it's usable. MoonJet (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge My original vote shall stay per above. The article is already in weak state after it was cleaned up by another editor. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 07:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The game is notable, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? This AFD is not about a game, but a character. And if you think they are notable, then why a merge? MoonJet (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rjjiii - Are there some typos in your comment or something? The subject isn't a game, and even if it was, that rationale doesn't make any sense for a merge stance. I assume you meant to say something else? Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The game Tekken 7 is notable, and the Tekken video game franchise is notable. The character Lucky Chloe is not notable. The reliable sources being used in the article are primarily about Tekken 7 and Tekken. The content in the Lucky Chloe article is cited and should be preserved by merging it into articles where it can be presented in context.[26][27] @MoonJet, Sergecross73, and Beemer69: hopefully that is more clear. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Kotaku source is more about Lucky Chloe than Tekken. So is the Eurogamer source. So is the Game Rant source I posted above. Even most of the remaining sources still give a notable focus on the character. Remember that GNG doesn't require the subject (in this case, Lucky Chloe) to be the main focus of the article, necessarily. MoonJet (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only Kotaku and EG actually go into depth about this issue. Game Rant digs up the same weak message board quotes ("One user described it as 'a little lazy', while another asked 'what is that abomination'.") That's not controversial as gamers are notoriously impossible to please, but Harada knew that any publicity helps and he ran with it. But in the end, it hasn't made her an A-lister in the Tekken franchise. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even just those two sources are arguably enough, at least with the other sources supplemented. The other sources listed, while maybe not as good as those two, I wouldn't call them "trivial mentions" either. MoonJet (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic7

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, coverage is limited to reprints of lightly edited press releases, but no significant independent analysis of Arctic7's operations. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Texas. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Coverage is a bit light, but several articles have detailed info. The Forbes Article is by senior contributor and is acceptable. These also help: gamedeveloper.com and gamesindustry.biz.Royal88888 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORBESCON says senior contributors are not reliable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. gamedeveloper.com and gamesindustry.biz articles are PR reprints. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Putting aside that the current sourcing has a WP:PROMO tone, the article is WP:TOOSOON given the studio has no history and no product yet announced. As a WP:ATD, given the pedigree of the team, it is better to shelve this to a draft until there is notable coverage of something the studio is up to. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any reason to expect the situation to change within the next 6 months so I'm not sure I see the motivation for a move to draftspace. If things change a few years down the line the page can always be undeleted. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Volume and depth of sourcing has been shown to be insufficient Star Mississippi 03:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Hazard

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

The Telegraph source is a sponsored article by the same company that sponsors Lewes Women. All other sources are not independent of Hazard. She fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think playing in the Championship (plus 2 league appearances with Arsenal in the FAWSL) does not always denotes "fails GNG". Some sources may be replaced however. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the above, the sourcing needs improvement but she is notable.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NFOOTBALL has been scrapped since 2022. Notability is not inherited either. Dougal18 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - level of play is not important, what matters is the coverage. I don't have any issues with the Telegraph article being sponsored by an accounting software company, the coverage looks good (although it is paywalled), but on its own it is not enough. Giant Snowman 12:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article may contain bias due to The Telegraph's relationship with Lewes FC, but is covered enough to pass on WP:GNG. I don't see a really strong reason for deletion in this case. Svartner (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I also think that it is probably slightly unproductive deleting the article as top division professional footballers are generally notable. Idiosincrático (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs better arguments than "footballers are generally notable".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Young player with ongoing career already with decent sources with fully pro WOmens Super League experience. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The amount of keep votes eschewing actual discussion of sources is perplexing, but feel free to ping me if any evidence of WP:SIGCOV is found. JTtheOG (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If no significant coverage can be shown outside of the one The Telegraph article, then she fails the WP:GNG. Simple as that. People arguing Keep above because of games or division played should remember that the sports SNGs were deprecated and the GNG is all that matters now. It should actually be an easier bar to meet than the "fully professional" nonsense from before, so if you can't even show proper secondary coverage, then the person isn't notable. Silver seren^C 23:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable person. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what independent reliable sources showing significant coverage, ie WP:GNG, Helpfulwikieditoryay? Silver seren^C 22:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Reiki

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

I don't think any of the sources are WP:RS, definitely not WP:MEDRS, and the bar should be very high for this kind of article. Maybe reiki or quantum healing as a redirect target? ~ A412 ^talk! 19:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't shed a tear if this quackery is deleted, but I suppose Energy medicine might be a reasonable redirect target. Pichpich (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reiki since there are secondary sources...however ridiculous the topic may be. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge. The sources are either not independent or WP:FRINGE. Reiki is pseudoscience too, but the history of the practice and the history of its study as pseudoscience are at least the topic of that article. Dekimasuよ! 03:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Udeorah Uche

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

BLP with no acceptable sources and no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Created back in 2009 when standards of BLPs were much lower, although the creator was still blocked indefinitely for making articles such as this one. Supersport is only a trivial mention of Uche and the only other mention of him was on Colinudoh.com, which shows him being named in a squad with Joseph Yobo, Nwankwo Kanu and a few other famous names. That said, WP:NOTINHERITED applies and Uche would need significant coverage about him to have his own article, which I could not find despite searching "Ude Uche" and "Uche Udeorah" as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even one source to meet Notability. Otuọcha (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, obviously. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haizea (given name)

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

PROD removed. This name fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT. Being in a top 10 list for one year does not establish notability. Few if any reliable sources found online. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is referenced and notable as one of the most popular names in Spain. There also appear to be several people with the name referenced in various Wikipedia articles who might have articles that could be written about them. I continue to think people are far to quick to nominate articles for deletion instead of expanding and improving them. I don't agree with the rationale behind these deletion nominations. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a widespread and common name with notable examples. WilsonP NYC (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However common it may be, it still fails WP:NNAME and has no WP:SIGCOV. Is someone wants to make articles about people with the name, please do so. Either way it could always be recreated or refunded if articles about people with the name are written in the future.

What is the point of deleting an article that has existed for years instead of expanding or improving it? I disagree with the standard on general principle, but there are also at least four people with this name mentioned in other articles and it remains an extremely popular name in Spain, which I would argue is its main claim to notability. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply User:Bookworm857158367, The age of the article is irrelevant, and expansion is pointless if the subject isn't notable. I have not found any reliable sources that it could be expanded with. You think I don't check beforehand? I don't know what's with this assumption that everything can be expanded and left A-okay. Being mentioned in articles is not tantamount to notability, and the only person that looks like they could be notable at a glance is Barcenilla Garcia. I also wouldn't call it "extremely" popular. I know it is reasonably popular in Basque Country, but the problem lies in the sources. Like I said, it could have future WP:POTENTIAL and can always be refunded or recreated. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion hasn’t changed, for the reasons given above. Continuing a circular argument probably would not be productive. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to WP:NNAME, a name is notable if it has two or more links to Wikipedia articles of persons with that name. There is no article for anyone named Haizea on this Wikipedia. Plus, I'm not sure if the sources are reliable. One of them is just a name database website and the other doesn't seem to mention the name itself. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I would like to take this chance to agree and reiterate the third sentence of my nomination statement, as well as the fact that I cannot seem to find many, if any, reliable, in-depth sources online. Pretty much all databases with dubious reliability. A name in absence of notable people bearing it is still expected to meet WP:GNG, which, based on what I can find, simply does not. It becomes indiscriminate information at that point (WP:NOTDICT). AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NNAME. There isn't even one notable Haizea. There is a Dweezil, but (fortunately) no given name article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per @StreetcarEnjoyer. Name without any notability. Svartner (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homifax

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

Questionable notability Amigao (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Frankly I think this comes very close to qualifying for speedy deletion under WP:G11.

AntiDionysius (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article, cites are a collection of press releases and apparent paid content. The article author did the bare minimum to get autoconfirmed by copy and pasting ChatGPT output into articles. This is a likely case of undisclosed paid editing. - MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the blackhat SEO and junk blogs. Nothing else comes up in searches, other than SEO from the usual places. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Husain

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

No pass of WP:PROF and newspaper coverage does not indicate separate notability from Decolonize This Place. BLP concerns have been raised at BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Amin_Husain Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per overwhelming consensus of other participants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Decolonize This Place. The project appears to be marginally notable, but I think it's a WP:BLP1E for Husain. Little sign of WP:NPROF. As far as GNG, there is some coverage of the subject's recent suspension from NYU, mostly (but not entirely) in blacklisted right-wing publications; I do not think that it is enough that we need this article. There is some possibility for WP:NCREATIVE, but I didn't find anything outside of the one project. Watching in case better evidence of NCREATIVE arises. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care if Husain keeps his own article or not (Wikipedia already has too many BLPs and not enough quality editors to maintain them), and think it's silly to myopically focus on a single recent event, but coverage "mostly (but not entirely) in blacklisted right-wing publications" is quite misleading: New York Daily News[28], The Forward[29], Washington Square News[30], Hyperallergic[31], and The Messenger[32] are hardly rightwing publications, and while National Review[33], The College Fix[34], Israel National News[35], Jewish News Syndicate[36], The Jewish Voice[37], and Campus Reform[38] lean conservative, they are not black-listed. The only formally deprecated or generally-unreliable sources I can find (without descending into the dregs of Twitter and bot content scrapers) are this article in the Daily Mail and an editorial in the New York Post. And for the umpteenth time, "right-wing publication" does not necessarily mean "bad" or "unreliable", no more so than do the many "left-wing" publications commonly used on Wikipedia, and indeed, systematic disregard of sources simply due to their editorial or political stance would (or should) fundamentally violate WP:NPOV: an event can be significant even if left-leaning media largely ignores it. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep, in light of the Occupy Wall Street coverage uncovered by Red-tailed hawk, which I did not find. The recent remarks about Hamas contribute somewhat to notability, although I am still unconvinced that it would overcome WP:BLP1E on its own. Although the sources covering the latter are a mixed bag, I do think there is enough coverage that it should go into the article. Apologies for delayed response; limited Wikipedia time this week. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a lot of recent coverage about recent comments, which is probably why this article was created, but this activist seems to have a long history that goes back at least until the early days of Occupy Wall Street. Long story short, he's been given significant coverage as an individual by independent reliable sources in the context of at multiple events. These events include:
1. Occupy Wall Street. A 2012 profile in New York Magazine, which dedicates several paragraphs to him, names him ten times, and states that Husain is characterized by a number of the prime movers as one of OWS’s "deep thinkers". He is also mentioned in The Toronto Star and Mondoweiss in relation to OWS, although the coverage is more brief. Husain also granted an interview in 2014 with Waging Nonviolence about his role in OWS.
2. Decolonize This Place. There is significant coverage of Husain in a variety of sources that relate to his involvement in Decolonize This Place. Coverage from The Jerusalem Post includes a standalone article specifically about his role as well a second standalone article about calls to fire him over it. He's heavily featured in an article by The Paris Review regarding DTP, as well. His mentions related to this project date as far back as 2017 in Hyperallergic, and 2016 in The Guardian. (There's also a fairly long blogpost by Verso Books about media coverage of Husain's participation in DTP, though I think that it's self-published as a blogpost, and thus wouldn't be usable for a BLP. I note it merely for posterity sake.) Passing mention also occurs in a 2021 piece and a 2019 piece from The New York Times, which describe some of his art-related protest organizing.
3. Hamas denialism. Recent comments that seem to have denied aspects of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, as well as the backlash to it and his firing, appear to have been covered significantly by a good number of sources. Such sources include The Forward, JNS, Israel's Channel 7 News, Hindustan Times, Hyperallergic, Washington Square News, The Messenger, and of course The Free Press (which seems to have been first to report on this). Some of these are possibly non-independent (Husain was a contributor at HyperAllergic, and WSN is NYU's student paper), but nevertheless there are multiple independent reliable sources here.

In addition to the above, he seems to have conducted an interview with the online affiliate of Monthly Review, another with the Center for Artistic Activism, yet another with Arts Cabinet, and yet another with Jewish Currents. As such, this is not a WP:BLP1E nor a low-profile individual by any means; he has both actively engaged press coverage by granting various interviews regarding his work in relation both to OWS and to DTP and he's given public speeches about it. He has also has been significantly covered in the context of multiple events. What all the sources above point to, therefore, is a very clear pass of WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG.

Some have indicated concerns about the current article's content. However, as the deletion policy itself notes, when editing can fix these reasons for deletion this should be done rather than deleting the page. There are enough sources to write a reasonably detailed article about this individual that is not doomed to be about a permastub. As such, the article should be kept and improved. After all, deletion is not cleanup. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: GNG appears to be adequately met, per Red-tailed hawk. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jalaal Hartley

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

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, checked newspapers.com and was unable to find anything beyond name drops for taking about films and shows, nothing on the actor himself. Wizardman 01:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Vortex Comics#Vortex Words + Pictures. ✗plicit 23:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex Media

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, coverage is limited to "exclusive" press releases (e.g. [39]) and brief mentions (e.g. [40]), but nothing that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Canada. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and merge) to Vortex Comics#Vortex Words + Pictures, where the company's film venture is treated and where it can be covered more concisely and clearly.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good suggestion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mushy Yank as a good WP:ATD-R option. -2pou (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Traub

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

Article fails WP:ANYBIO. Subject has not work a well know of significant award. Has not make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the historical record. Article reads a bit like a WP:RESUME. Did WP:BEFORE, was unable to find other sources that would have made this person notable. Checked Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and the Newspaper archives. There is content for some of the things that he did but nothing that would rise to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Advertising, Travel and tourism, California, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation to delete the article appears rash; perhaps the page was analyzed before citations were added. There were hundreds of articles and several books that mentioned Doug Traub over the past few decades; most of them are no longer online, however, especially as most major newspapers and magazines now archive stories and make them only available to subscribers. Regardless, several articles from significant news sources like the Associated Press are now cited and archived in the article, and dozens of stories are still online (The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc.) that have not been cited. Please take another look. FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC) FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FrequentTraveler100 Sure no problem just point out which references address any of these points WP:ANYBIO. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hitting the sack in a bit, but let me address your issues now before I turn in by pointing out three areas where the Doug Traub article meets the Wikipedia Notability criteria:

Any biography: Doug Traub made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record - the Surf City USA trademark and the attendant publicity are recognised as part of the historical record in California Tourism (the Surf City USA page itself is within the scope of the WikiProject California project) and trademark branding (the Surf City USA trademark is within the scope of the WikiProject Law).

Creative professionals: The person's work has become a significant monument - the Fayetteville History Museum within the restored Cape Fear and Yadkin Valley railway depot that Doug Traub led the charge to rehabilitate after remaining vacant and dilapidated for more than 50 years meets this criteria.

Politicians and judges: Doug Traub is a local political figure who received significant press coverage. This final criteria alone should be more than sufficient to meet the Wikipedia notability criteria.

Thanks for pointing out your issues with this article and providing me with an opportunity to respond to your concerns. Good night! FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Tampa Bay Times is essentially a newspaper of record. Decent local coverage too. I think this meets notability. TLA (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but one source isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, numerous new additional sources have been added for this page, including The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, NBC News/Associated Press and Las Vegas Review-Journal. I am currently making a substantial revision to the Surf City USA page where Traub is also cited which includes links to stories all over the world, including a front page story on the Wall Street Journal. Please do not be too hasty to pull the trigger on this page. I hope to return to it before the end of the week and bolster the citations quite a bit more. Thank you. FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Puffy stories used for this marketing person, not seeing any about his specifically. He does stuff related to travel, but nothing we'd use for article sourcing here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 23:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Kallot

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Dubious notabilty. Refs are profiles, PR from company and x of y scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I watched the page and felt the same way as the nominator. I didn't AfD the page, but once it's here, I think the person is not yet notable enough, nor is the sourcing good enough to establish notability. --BoraVoro (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melilla Corridor

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

This air corridor isn't notable enough for a standalone article. There is nothing particular or specially notable about this air corridor. Instructions regarding this air corridor (speed limitation, class of airspace, etc.) are not information that should be on Wikipedia as well. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't find anything talking about this that isn't air travel documents. Most mentions of the "Melilla Corridor" are about trade and immigration. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basepoint Centres

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

No evidence of significant (or any) coverage; tagged for notability since 2011. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. Owen× ☎ 14:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMOTION, not for promoting businesses. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no reliable or any semi-reliable sources may be found or added. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Reynolds

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Chancer. scope_creep^Talk 11:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not meeting ANYBI, plus no better sourcing than presented already in the article; wp before won't help. --BoraVoro (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not nearly enough SIGCOV here for GNG to be met. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree per nom. Paul W (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 14:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Spock

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

Self-promotional page originally set up by the subject themselves. Little to no secondary sources to make this person suitable for a page to be found online. Griseo veritas (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Video games. Griseo veritas (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, France, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Institute

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

Existing sources are press releases and primary. I am unable to find anything else. Royal88888 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. Royal88888 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources found. Ping me if you find one. Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 10:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz–Nuggets rivalry

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

Not a notable rivalry, as evidenced by the used source as well,which concludes "Simply put, to have competed against your "rival" in the playoffs just four times in 35-plus years is pretty weak." Fram (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Basketball, Colorado, and Utah. Fram (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. There are several sources speak of this as a rivalry throughout the decades, such as Jazz-Nugget rivalry to be renewed tuesday (The Daily Utah Chronicle - 1985), Jazz-Nuggets rivalry may get kick-start (The Salt Lake Tribune - 1994), Nuggets turn corner to renew rivalry with Jazz (The Daily Spectrum - 2004), Nuggets finally admit the obvious. They’ve got a rivalry with the Utah Jazz.] (The Denver Post - 2021) Alvaldi (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG per the sources provided by Alvaldi. The nominator brings up having a small number of postseason meetings. However, frequent playoff matchups is not a requirement to be a “rivalry.” Frank Anchor 11:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources by Alvaldi. I also agree with Frank Anchor. When it comes to rivalries, frequent playoff matches don't always mean there is a rivalry, similar to how there might still be a rivalry despite no playoff matches. Conyo14 (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 10:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of associated information technology certifications

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

Companies provide their own certification, yes, many more than the ones listed here in fact. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, basically a business directory including only one type of business and excluding others because of what recruiters supposedly want. Fram (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, Computing, Software, and Lists. Fram (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear cut directory. Shankargb (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha constituencies of Himachal Pradesh by number of voters

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

This list is a union of List of constituencies of the Lok Sabha#Himachal Pradesh (4) and List of constituencies of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly. It doesn't meet WP:NLIST on its own. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, India, and Himachal Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTIINFO. List topic doesn't meet WP:LISTN and there are almost no other articles that list the number of electors for particular electoral constituencies. Ajf773 (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Charles

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. We even delete Olympic competitors, and this beach volleyball player did not even reach that level. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Dennis. Geschichte (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 10:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dennis

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. We even delete Olympic competitors, and this beach volleyball player did not even reach that level. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Charles. Geschichte (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Janeczek

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

No evidence of this meeting WP:NBIO. Non-notable minor security functionary who died in a high-profile crash. Pl Wikipedia article is a bit longer but also has nothing suggesting notability. A posthumous award of Order of Polonia Restituta, likely mass-awarded to everyone who died in said tragic event (~90 people) is not enough. WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect: Not notable because the only few sources are obituaries. NicolausPrime (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarosław Florczak

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

No evidence of this meeting WP:NBIO. Non-notable security functionary (lt. col) who died in a high-profile crash. Pl Wikipedia article is a bit longer but also has nothing suggesting notability (coverage is at obituary level at best). A posthumous award of Order of Polonia Restituta, likely mass-awarded to everyone who died in said tragic event (~90 people) is not enough. WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect: Not notable because the only few sources are obituaries. NicolausPrime (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalkal Carty

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

One of countless promotional non-notable artist wiki pages entirely created by one new user. 6 Google News hits from really non-notable sources, and that's it. A desperate attempt to raise the profile of the subject. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Dance, Jamaica, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only primary sources located. Mach61 (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There seems to be more than enough references to keep a posting about Shalkal Carty. I think that the page certainly is within the realm of the spirit of Wikipedia. Feerfox (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the sockpuppet discussion involving this voter. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feerfox has been confirmed as a sockpuppet. I feel confident that striking that vote is in order. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article has been written in a neutral point of view and needs citation for the points that lack them. It should be have been tagged with need for verification rather than asking for deletion of the page. Showergirl (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article satisfies all Wikipedia guidelines and meet requirements for notability. It should be kept for future improvements by editors Augmere40 (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 10:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie de Caen

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

The 3 sources provided are all dead. A google news search yields 4 hits all from Haiti Libre and not indepth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palatine, Kansas

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

Another post office with nothing there, this time in a triangular fields by a stream. Longer lived than most we've looked at, but it still didn't make it into the 20th century. Searching is surprisingly bad, but I couldn't find anything I could tie to this spot. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any references to this as anything more than a post office. Some sources say the post office moved across the river to Chetolah in 1888 but retained the Palatine name (e.g. here^[1]), so maybe it should get a sentence or two there. Would explain the longevity. Jbt89 (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence on the Palatine post office to the Lookout Township, Ellis County, Kansas article. This article is now completely redundant with that one except for the coordinates. Jbt89 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contemporary Kansas State Board of Agriculture reports say outright that this is a post office in Smoky Hill Township.
I've already fixed up Ellis County, Kansas#Communities with what can actually be supported from Blackmar's Cyclopedia and the Board of Agriculture reports as genuine towns, hamlets, and post offices. Only Rome in the list of ghost towns there has actual support from any of these sources for being a ghost town, and now has one of the sources that does. All other purported ghost towns in that article are not supported from them, in particular not from the Cyclopedia, which goes down to detail at the hamlet level.
Connelley's 1928 History of Kansas does not have this.
Gannett's 1898 gazetteer says "post village", but given the lack of support from anywhere else for the "village" part, I'm inclined to think that this is yet another of Gannett's errors.
And the GHIS record that gave us this? "(historical)" in the name and "locale" (not "ppl") as the original feature class.
This is yet more padded with boilerplate Kansas crap that is inventing a ghost town and was never supported in that in the first place by its original supposed unreliable source.
Uncle G (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://krex.k-state.edu/bitstream/handle/2097/41188/ffb61cfefed989adac8e97eebcc9278c.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Comment The wikipedia library service issue is keeping me out of newspapers.com still. I'll see what I can find in the other database before I head to the airport. Gone till friday.James.folsom (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the extensive searches described above.

JoelleJay (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think I finally have a handle on this. I found one article that revealed it was named by a judge, for his birth township. Another notice in the paper indicated that a post office was being discontinued, and mail would no longer go any further than Palatine. The newspaper is asking in this notice for people let them know where to send their paper. I don't know why I never made this connection before. People would go to the post office to get their mail, and if people needed to send them mail, they needed know which post office. So they essentially they need to say they are from palatine, so people would know where to send correspondence. It doesn't denote where they live, but where they get their mail.James.folsom (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Childs-Adams

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

Article solely based on primary sources. A google news search yields a small number of hits, and it's mainly her making comments and not indepth coverage of her. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libya, Lebanon, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 10:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Countess Victoria Bernstorff-Gyldensteen

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

Unimportant notablity with little to no information that violates WP:NBIO. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, Denmark, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I could find only a single source that had more to say than what it says here, and that was the capsule bio from one of the charities she sponsors. Other than that there was some fussing among royal jewel watchers about how one of her tiaras was worn by Carina Axelsson. Her husband only appears in the Danish WP, and is tagged for a lack of citations; about the only thing I found out about him was that they are using drones to count pumpkins on one of his properties in order to manage the crop better. They seem to be pretty peripheral nobility. Mangoe (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ Charles Oronsaye and draftify Africana Couture. Clear consensus not to retain either in mainspace, and significant enough opposition to delete Charles Oronsaye outright. Daniel (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Oronsaye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was 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 10:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Circular RNA databases and resources

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

An egregious WP:NOTREPOSITORY violation. At best a WP:MADRENAME to a new external links section in circular RNA, but this would be a WP:COSTLY redirect per WP:PANDORA: we shouldn't have the expectation that REPOSITORY-esque redirects exist to the "external links" section of a given article. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 10:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Club

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

Not finding any SIGCOV whatsoever. During a WP:BEFORE search, I was able to find its own website, and this website which literally asked me for my phone number (!) (it took a great deal of willpower to resist responding with 867-5309); neither of these are helpful. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Andhra Pradesh. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Glossary of video game terms. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Career mode

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

Recently tagged for OR/GNG. My BEFORE in scholarly shows mentions in passing, but nothing dedicated to this. Not sure if WP:SIGCOV can be met; the current sources focus on this term within one game. OR is present as the alternative names are for example just examples; ditto for the poorly formatted list of examples. This might warrant WP:TNT or redirecting for now - it should be written from scratch with reliable, scholarly sources, if it is possible. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Sports. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to glossary of video game terms. I agree with much of the nomination, and this target is a common location for these under-sourced, under-developed video games terms. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Campaign (gaming) of which this is essentially an overlap in every way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to glossary of video game terms per nom. Campaign (gaming) has a host of content issues, chiefly that it too is being used as a glossary term. czar 04:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not really certain "campaign (gaming)" would survive an AFD or merge discussion either... Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to glossary of video game terms as a WP:ATD. It lacks the coverage to substantiate notability. The article needs a WP:TNT approach as suggested by the nominator. I do think there is potential to reforge something. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sports video game#Game design; this article lacks the overview-level sourcing required for a stand-alone page but it's essentially being discussed in the context of sports video games, it fits in nicely with the target section where such information is lacking, and the target section has been tagged since February 2009 as needing expansion. Left guide (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Shotton

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD would be redirect to Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations, but I am not sure it would be helpful. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a review in the The Guardian by the art critic Jonathan Jones: [41]. While this does count towards GNG - it is insufficient on its own. ResonantDis_tortion 23:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerald D. Slack

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: adding sources from Newspapers.com, feels likely this will pass WP:GNG with a bit more work. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, due to these sources added: [42][43][44][45]. Seems like we have enough, plus there seems to be more out there, to meet WP:GNG. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Firearms Policy Coalition

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Firearms, and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i created this one. Went back and did some further research to support the basic article. It is not a super in depth one, but i think it is sufficient to pass basic WP:NORG WP:GNG now.Iljhgtn (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think your additions help much. You added several passing mentions that contain very little or no content about the organization itself [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], a promotional article from a source with questionable reliability that is not independent as it is 90% primary content directly attributed to the director of the organization [51], a company profile by Bloomberg that doesn't count towards notability [52], an unreliable source [53], and a non-independent source [54]. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source of them from Newsweek now too dating to 2019. Added that to the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable (WP:NEWSWEEK). ––FormalDude (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYT: 3 sentences, borderline sigcov.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kroener

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

Promotional, fails WP:GNG. Coverage is solely related to the already-deleted Carbliss (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbliss), and WP:NOTINHERITED in any case. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it seems promotional and not very notable Gaismagorm (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Fox Cave, Shmankivtsi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gilliland

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not enough for me to vote keep yet, but there's lasting, significant coverage in this book Mach61 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the fish were biting in this confirmation [58], rest of Gnewspapers is for various politicians. Nothing about this person found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep‎ and move to Arco stelae, which seems to have marginally more support here than Arco I, as well as easier sourcing. Discussion about the best title can continue on the article's Talk page. Give me a shout (or tag with G6) if the new Arco I redir needs to be deleted to make way for a move. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Mama stela

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refund Home Loans

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. There is the possibility of merge/redirect to founder, but I think that might unbalance the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - From what I can tell this just barely meets SIRS with the Advisor article being the most in-depth and substantive. It seems to have been notable and controversial independently of the notable founder. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is some coverage. I found this in-depth article. Geeraarts (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim to notability. Llajwa (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Fails GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Coverage is run of the mill. Not the only Australian company to breach the Trade Practices Act. LibStar (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solemn Novena

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Northern Ireland. Owen× ☎ 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

Logs: 2006-09 ✗ CSD A7

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim to notability. Llajwa (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 00:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eleven

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

This particular "season" (comic book series) is not generally notable. The cited sources come from Darkhorse, who publishes the comic book. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to EMagin. Star Mississippi 18:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z800 3DVisor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was 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 00:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narmin Knyaz

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

The person mentioned is not encyclopedic and the article is for promotional purposes only. Redivy (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources found. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Radio, Television, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://krex.k-state.edu/bitstream/handle/2097/41188/ffb61cfefed989adac8e97eebcc9278c.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

[1]