Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 18	June 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎ and Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT in Israel

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

Redirect per WP:2DABS. Unless there are more articles about LGBT in Israel. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Disambiguations, and Israel. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Without prejudice against having this article in the future. gidonb (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom clear case, unless there are further articles somewhere? FortunateSons (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have just added a link to the rights page in the first sentence of the history page, and a hatnote to the history page on the first section of the rights page. Now this can be deleted per others above. Toadspike [Talk] 14:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there is Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel, but I'm not sure that falls under this topic. The DAB has an awkward title and I'd prefer this were resolved with links and hatnotes. Toadspike [Talk] 14:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to LGBT history in Israel, which mentions rights in the first line. This is not an ambiguous topic, per WP:DABCONCEPT. BD2412 T 20:30, 26 June 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 Wicked (musical). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Is This Feeling?

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

This article has been unsourced for ten years. Little coverage of this song is found, therefore failing WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every song from a popular musical is notable. The song has not charted or become a standard in any way. The sources do not give it significant coverage separate from the musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wicked (musical) per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wicked (musical).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:40, 26 June 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 Wicked (musical). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Not That Girl

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

This article has been tagged as unsourced for 8 years. Little coverage of song to be found, therefore failing WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The song has not charted or become a standard. The sources do not give it significant coverage separate from the musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicked (musical) per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Numberguy6 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per @QuietHere's suggestion, and as article is WP:OR and WP:STUB. --Mjks28 (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicked (musical).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:40, 26 June 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 Wicked (musical). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Through Life

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

This article is unsourced. Little coverage of song to be found, therefore failing WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The song has not charted or become a standard. The sources do not give it significant coverage separate from the musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicked (musical) per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicked (musical) per above. Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 23 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanasis Kaproulias

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

Unsourced BLP with no claim to notability — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Greece. — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further info Note that he goes by Novi_sad so don't confuse with the city in Serbia. Still little under this moniker though. Also note the two sources in the article are either dead or fail verification. I forgot to PROD this article. Sorry about that! Sources do exist for Novi-sad: Sedition Art, again, Bandcamp, Discogs, eBay, lpdr, Horizons Music. But these are really promo sites or sites for selling the music. This is about the only thing that might help with nobility as all other sites for "Thanasis Kaproulias" are bios on IMDb, Discogs, AllMusic or the like. Not enough coverage in truly reliable sources so fails WP:GNG (especially WP:SPIP), WP:SINGER and WP:NBLP. — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is clearly not enough coverage to meet the GNG. I would say this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, but this article has existed since 2008 and is largely unchanged since 2010. Toadspike [Talk] 15:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ezenwa Chukwudi

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE or whatever WP:SNG that applies. Building the ‘Awka Dubai Estate’ doesn't make the subject presumptively notable. The sources are overly promotional and poor, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, etc. More information can be found in the source assessment below.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/08/10-things-about-gss-group-ceo-founder-chukwudi-ezenwa/	~ Because this piece lacks a byline	marginally reliable per WP:NGRS and this particular piece lacks a byline which is very bad.		✘ No
https://independent.ng/gss-group-boss-arc-chukwudi-ezenwa-marks-birthday-with-multi-million-empowerment-for-anambra-youths/#google_vignette	~	even though reliable per WP:NGRS, the overly promotional nature of this piece takes us nowhere.	~ The piece provides significant coverage of Chukwudi Ezenwa’s philanthropic act, rather than him directly.	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/11/why-im-building-dubai-estate-in-enugu-ezenwa/	~ This source appears to be a promotional piece about the ‘Dubai Estate’ project by Chukwudi Ezenwa.	~ Ditto. However, it has a promotional tone.	The piece provides significant coverage of the ‘Dubai Estate’ project, rather than him directly.	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/news/chukwudi-ezenwa-repositions-private-security-business-in-south-east/	~ The overly promotional nature of this piece makes one doubt the independence.	Overly promotional piece.		✘ No
https://anambrapeople.com.ng/2022/07/02/anambra-30-under-35-entrepreneurs-to-watch/	Vanity list from an unreliable source	Lacks editorial oversight	~	✘ No
https://independent.ng/untold-story-of-multiple-award-winning-architect-philanthropist-ezenwa-chukwudi/	Evident from statements like "I started off", "I have always been", etc.	Overly promotional piece that is likely dependent of the subject.		✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/02/chukwudi-ezenwa-the-rising-star-of-entrepreneurship-in-nigeria/	Overly promotional piece	marginally reliable per WP:NGRS and this particular piece lacks a byline which is very bad.		✘ No
https://thenationonlineng.net/the-remarkable-story-of-chukwudi-ezenwa/	~ Overly promotional piece	~ Overly promotional piece from a reliable source per WP:NGRS		~ Partial
https://sunnewsonline.com/gss-group-to-reward-dubai-estate-subscribers-with-multi-million-naira-prizes-2/		What's a news piece without a byline?		✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2021/02/24/ezenwas-passion-for-gss-security-outfit/	Overly promotional piece	What's journalism without a byline? Plus, the overly promotional nature of this piece	This focuses more on GSS than Chukwudi	✘ No
https://sunnewsonline.com/anambra-lands-commissioner-flags-off-plots-allocation-at-awka-dubai-estate/	I won't assess the independence of this source because it doesn't apply to Chukwudi personally	I won't assess the reliability of this source because it doesn't apply to Chukwudi personally		✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/12/gss-boss-ezenwa-bags-iso-sec-membership/	~	~ Ditto	~	~ Partial
https://thetop10magazine.com.ng/top-10-ceos-of-the-year-2022-chukwudi-ezenwa/			~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anambra people magazine is like every other state outlet like Uhuru Times or New York Post which is published in a state. Also, The Top10 Magazine is eligible like all other Nigerian business magazine as most reliable newspapers pick from their Top 10 list yearly. Vanguard (ref 1), TheCable (ref 2), and so on. The Magazine is published in Lagos and features only business personnel, who have contributed to ~~the~~ Nigeria by creating job opportunities. Afí-afeti (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Afí-afeti A magazine without editorial oversight cannot be considered a reliable one. The two outlets you mentioned both have and can't be used to compare this particular magazine. The piece you cited from top 10 magazine, is not only overly promotional but very likely a content that was influenced by the subject, even though it is clear that it doesn't really provide significant coverage of him directly. I also do not see how a magazine of such calibre you described will not have a viable editorial policy. I am not going to comment on [1] and [2] because it does not apply to this discussion or Chukwudi. I do assessment of sources mostly individually because a generally reliable publication can publish a nonsense, unreliable piece that is not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with most of the source table above. Puffy descriptions about a young person, with no substance for most of them. The "35 most notable list" and the CEO award mean nothing for notability here, and the rest seems PR-ish. I'm almost certain we just saw this at AfD... Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree he doesn't meet WP:GNG, but he meets one of the citations which lacks a byline and I believe it's Vanguard Nigeria issue. I have checked other publications, either the author names are not clickable, or there is no byline. Bylines are main to have a back-link to look at other articles written by the Author for example check this out: 1, 2, and the third link was gotten from the editorial column 3 which has no byline but it on the editorial section. As per WP:ARCHITECT he meets one of the criteria, looking at "Awka Dubai Estate" a major real-estate project in Anambra state, which was allocated and commissioned by Bonaventure Enemali.--Afí-afeti (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification, TurnTable, and BellaNaija don't give credit (byline always named after these platforms, checkout all TurnTable news, all written by TurnTable even if it was pitched by another author zero credit, likewise BellaNaija). TurnTable only post a byline credited to the writer when it comes to its Magazine column and BellaNaija does likewise when it comes to Career column which was last seen on its website 2 or 4 years ago Ivie Afí-afeti (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are either non-RS or not independent of the subject.-KH-1 (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sources are unreliable, which leaves no SIGCOV in reliable sources. Toadspike [Talk] 15:23, 26 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 PDC-E

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

Could not find SIGCOV for this object. This fails our notability guidelines. Jontesta (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd expect there to be a Planetary Defense Conference article that this could be merged to. Is the conference itself not notable? SevenSpheres (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. A quick Google search shows the conference to be held in every odd numbered year. Last year was Vienna; next year Cape Town. Each seems to be reported by the United Nations and by some other reliable source. We could start by simply renaming the existing notional asteroid article to Planetary Defense Conference, then generalizing the first paragraph and adding bullet points or perhaps even sections about later editions. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Without a convincing argument to Keep or an existing target article, it is likely this article will be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 19 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tully (app)

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

The sourcing that exists is very weak. Several are interviews with the app's co-founder/promoter, Joyner Lucas, who is a notable musician, but notability is not inherited from him. Other sources appear to be either PR-based; press releases reposted onto other websites. A few passing mentions. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources, particularly if HNHH is not considered reliable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and Computing. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Press releases do not reach WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 23:44, 19 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eze Harper

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV; all that came up was this transactional announcement. A possible redirect target is List of Barrow Raiders players. JTtheOG (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Representative footballer.Fleets (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participation-based criteria for athletes were deprecated two years ago. JTtheOG (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided Not really enough references but still something, notability if carrer is also somewhere in the middle. Mn1548 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please present policy-based arguments for your opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I could find on ProQuest were at most mentions in routine match reports, e.g. 15 minutes later Walsh responded with an amazing flying catch off another Adam Quinlan kick, going over the top of Sharks' Eze Harper to go over the line wide right. or routine transactional reports. Nowhere close to the required IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG as a WP:BLP. Let'srun (talk) 18:26, 26 June 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 Clarence Railway. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simpasture railway station

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

Fails GNG. Of the seven sources, two are trivial mentions, four don't mention the station at all, and one (Priestley) has brief mentions of a station of similar name but many decades earlier. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Sadly, this now-gone depot was only notable at a local level. TH1980 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed at one point and is documented to have. Why not accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP: Consistency and per WP: Notable. As it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you're making up a non-existent "consistency" policy, this article cites no books, and the citations present do not give significant coverage of the station. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed at one point and is documented to have. So you should get over it and accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to "get over" anything, train stations are not notable on Wikipedia simply by virtue of once existing, per community consensus. You don't get to ignore community consensus just because it's your article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clarence Railway per nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:IDHT is strong with you, train stations are not notable solely for having once existed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P. Off DragonofBatley (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like No consensus. When presenting your argument, please cite current, relevant policy and guidelines and focus on the article and its sources, not other contributors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clarence Railway as a WP:ATD. S5A-0043^Talk 21:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per WP: Notability. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't looked through all the sources yet, but no one has disputed Pi.1415926535's analysis, so I lean towards redirecting this. More importantly, are we just going to let this remark from DragonofBatley slide? I'm pretty sure that's a personal attack. Toadspike [Talk] 15:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading DoB's comments to make sense of this, I see no valid argument for keeping this article. If DoB can provide citations to the "quite a few books" they claim that cover this station, they can ping me and I'll reconsider. Toadspike [Talk] 15:47, 26 June 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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traders Point Christian Church

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only one source is independent and significant. User:Namiba 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Indiana. User:Namiba 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First hit in Gsearch is their own website, then it's off into un-RS... The article uses primary sources now and I don't find coverage of this church. Having the fastest growing congregation in 2016 isn't terribly notable and the rest isn't helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's significant coverage in a book (see Diamond, 2003), as well as in Indianapolis Monthly. The Indy Star coverage available can support facts in the article but doesn't go toward notability because (even though some is in great depth) it's generally coverage of new locations and inclusion in "fastest growing" lists that WP:ORGCRIT excludes. Even so, the Diamond book and Indianapolis Monthly piece should cross the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above by Dclemen1971, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the two above, but I'd like to see a lot more about the church's history than 'it started in 1834...oh it's a megachurch now' and its history needs to be seriously filled in. Nate • (chatter) 21:44, 19 June 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 speedy keep‎. Nominator withdrew the AfD. (non-admin closure) HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web Environment Integrity

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

Fails WP:SUSTAINED and the 10-year test. The last significant coverage of this incident was in 2023 and the proposal was abandoned and failed to get significant traction. We are not a newspaper. Sohom (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is not temporary. Kinopiko ^talk 23:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kinopiko Could you explain how the subject has received significant coverage over a "sufficiently significant period" (as required by WP:GNG)?

To expand of my rationale, according to the sourcing in the article (and what I could find online) there are exactly three reliable sources that have covered this issue from a period starting at July 26 2023 when the proposal was announced till November 2023 when the proposal was withdrawn. I personally would not consider that level of coverage to be significant enough coverage over an extended period of time for the subject matter. There has been no RS coverage of the issue since, something that is expected of similar topics in web privacy (see for example Client Hints, or the Privacy Sandbox both of which had similar negative pushback but has had more sustained coverage due to the fact that they were implemented in Chrome). Sohom (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sustained coverage is not required. Subject simply does meet the WP:GNG. I would not be surprised if Google tries something like this again, we could then discuss merging it into some background section. But for now, I don't see a good merge target and think the article can stay as-is. The point of WP:SUSTAINED is that subjects that have gotten sustained coverage are more likely to be notable. But the lack of sustained coverage does not mean it is not notable. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PhotographyEdits (Thinking out loud here), maybe this belongs as a section to a hypothetical article on Private access tokens or as part of CAPTCHAs and Digital Rights Management? The way I see it, the article is kinda in a perma-start state, with a majority of the sourcing being first-party documentation and position documents (atleast until Google goes and messes up shit again, which I agree they will probably do, but that is also WP:CRYSTAL. Sohom (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coverage from Ars Technica and The Register gives in-depth analysis of the proposal and the surrounding controversy, so this passes WP: GNG. The subject has received attention over the span of several months, as the nominator has stated themselves -- if that isn't sustained coverage, I don't know what is. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Based on the comments above, (and sleeping on it a bit, and considering the validity of my own arguments) it's clear I am in the minority . Please consider this AFD withdrawn. Sohom (talk) 00:21, 22 June 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 speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 14:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Fergus

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Tkaras1 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Role in the main cast of Passions and lead role in Hellbent, that are notable productions, (at least) have him meet WP:NACTOR imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:12, 20 June 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. Seems to be the consensus to keep in light of new sources, though other keep arguments are weaker. Malinaccier (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Engel

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

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. No rule about number of bracelets won to determine notability. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article was previously created by blocked user, deleted, then re-deleted as G5. New article is fresh and not a G5 candidate. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on potential impact I will not disagree about there not being a rule about what is notable in the poker community around here but there is much inconsistency. If Engel is deemed not to be notable, then probably at least over half of legacy poker articles on here need to be wiped. I noticed the nominator's other tagged deletions, which I agree with because they do not bring much to the table. Bracelets are considered the gold standard in the poker community and three is nothing to scoff at. The circuit rings record alone should warrant merit but that is justm y opinion. Major titles won, money earned, or major impact historically on pop culture through the game should be what merits a player's notability in my opinion. It would be nice to have a set standard on what is deemed worthy so time on improvements is not wasted. Red Director (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have been around the poker community on here for years so although it would be sad to lose legacy articles, some of these do not warrant merit existance at all if this is the standard we want to place. Engel has more accomplishments of note than most of these on a quick glance. Red Director (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"major impact historically on pop culture through the game" - surely someone has described that impact. Then, it's just a matter of writing down who that person was, and we have a source that contributes to notability. The thing we can't do, on the other hand, is that one of us, a Wikipedia user, is the one who discerns the cultural impact. It has to be verified by another party. Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engel definetly does not check the box of culturally impactful poker player lol. The only things that maybe make sense for the article being retained are his accomplishments which gulf many other players here who do not even come close to that pedigree. I do not care if this article stays or leaves personally. Existing articles make a case for keeping is all I am saying. Red Director (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existing articles make a case for keeping is a WP:WHATABOUTISM. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article to have more information, references, and an external link section. I personally did not think he warranted an article based on what is considered to relevant in this day and age of poker, but he is close in my opinion. One more WSOP bracelet puts in him in a good class of player in the modern age. However, poker is a funny game. He could win his next tournament or never win another one. It seems the fact that a previously blocked user made this page seems to be what put Engel's article on a deletion path when it is not deserved based on what has been allowed to be on here. It just seems odd that we are drawing the line here on this one page when there are plenty of untargeted articles on players who have not done anything of note in one or two decades where their only major accomplishments came during 2003-2007's poker boom. I fully expect this page to be deleted though so no worries if that is the consensus. Red Director (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is still WP:WHATABOUTISM. If you know of other articles that don't measure up, then please nominate them for deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, I found this [3], a primary source where the subject talks about himself. I still don't see enough in RS to build an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Red Director. The bracelets merits inclusion alone but then there's also the record holding of circuit rings (17). Atleast the main events at each circuit tour stop is pro-amateur. There's also a million plus score in a highly regarded event. PsychoticIncall (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those satisfy our requirements for notability per WP:NBIO. Please read WP:SIRS and respond with WP:THREE references that each meet the requirements detailed in SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG [4][5][6][7][8] Also, the two newspaper.com clippings are from the same article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep while the directory listings don't help, there is plenty of sourcing in the article that counts toward WP:N (unless PokerNews isn't a reliable source for some reason, then the numbers drop a lot). Hobit (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by WikiOriginal-9. One of the newspaper clippings is broken, though. Not sure why. By the way, we also have a dewiki article on this fellow – I've now connected the languages via Wikidata. Toadspike [Talk] 09:10, 20 June 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 Vii. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JungleTac

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

Sourced mainly to user-generated forums and the like, could not find reliable sources about them at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The company's website is no longer available. I could not find the company's Chinese-language name even after checking archived versions of the company's website like this one from 2010. The company does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't notable, it could possibly be made into a redirect page to the Vii? That was the most notable JungleTac product as far as I could tell. Dr. Precursor (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Precursor (talk · contribs), that's a good suggestion. Redirect to Vii (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. This article from PCMag verifies the connection:
The massive success of the Wii was a boon for bootleggers. Since Nintendo's console wasn't particularly beefy from a technical standpoint, cheap knock-offs didn't have far to go to catch up. Chinese bootleg manufacturer JungleTac rushed the hilariously ratty "Vii" to market in 2007 to capitalize on buyer confusion.
Cunard (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP: N. I found a mention of one of their consoles in a PCMag article and a few mentions in a book, but nothing more. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vii PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:18, 26 June 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 Swapan Saha#Filmography. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger (2007 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

2007 film hasn't got any more notable in the seven months since the last AFD. Speedy G4 removed without comment, so here we go again. As in the last AFD, couldn't find a single reliable source in English or Bengali (টাইগার 2007 মিঠুন). The only source cited so far that actually mentions the film is a copy of the film posted to Dailymotion. Recently declined twice at draft by same article creator. A case can be made for salting it now, I think. Wikishovel (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and West Bengal. Wikishovel (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current sourcing is inadequate to satisfy WP:NFILM, no good sourcing came up when searching and none was found during the first AFD either; given the age of the film and elapsed time since the last AFD it is unlikely new sourcing would be available anyway. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:1823:FC07:8CDE:1454 (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swapan Saha#Filmography: director (verifiable: TOI, TV Guide). If the claims on the page are verified, not opposed to keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) (that was my !vote in the 1st AfD, more or less)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Surinder_Films#Films. Poor sources with no indepth coverage and reliable critic reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All current sources are passing mentions. The film released during the Internet era and should only be recreated with reliable reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete, per reasons given not to keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 01:24, 26 June 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hagg

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails to meet WP:GNG. No improvement since last AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Hagg Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and American football. Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Another ridiculous nomination by this user. Clearly meets GNG: [9] [10] [11] [12]. And you absolutely do not know that there's been "no improvement since last AFD" – which was over a decade ago, since there has been... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What tool do you use to cite out those newspaper? They seem to be helpful as they don't appear on Google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com is accessible to users through the Wikipedia Library. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What do you mean no improvement since the last AFD? Looking at the version from that time, it's pretty clearly been improved upon. Since that nomination, which was before he had ever played in the NFL, he has appeared in 22 NFL games. Being that he was also a third-team All-American and a first-team All-Big 12 player, there's clear WP:SIGCOV that exists. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are an admin. I would like to withdraw my nomination on this subject as I am satisfied with @BeanieFan11 response. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet the requirements of WP:GNG to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 19 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uri Gordon (anarchist)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO and lacks WP:SIGCOV. The sources here, as well as those found in a WP:BEFORE search, are primary in that they consist mainly of interviews and self-published works by the article subject. No in-depth, third party articles by reliable publications would be found. As an editor commented on the article Talk page, appearance in other language Wikis is not among criteria for evaluating notability for the English Wikipedia. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politics, Israel, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not yet a !vote): his Google Scholar profile [13] shows three publications with triple-digit citation counts; this sounds strong to me but how does it compare to others in similar topics? I found and added to the article three published reviews (in academic journals from mainstream publishers) of his book Anarchy alive!, but I didn't find reviews for his other books Routledge Handbook of Radical Politics, Six Zionist Essays, Hier und jetzt: anarchistische Praxis und Theorie (maybe a translation of Anarchy alive!?), and Anarchists Against the Wall: Direct Action and Solidarity with the Palestinian Popular Struggle. Another review of at least a second book would be needed for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wee note that Six Zionist Essays was written by a different Uri Gordon. — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing. Thanks for the correction. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a couple of reviews of Anarchists Against the Wall, one in Fifth Estate (Spring/Summer 2014, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p34-35) and one in Social Movement Studies (May 2016, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p335-338). — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1, WP:AUTHOR, and the additional reliably-published reviews found by LittleDwangs, which I have found links for and added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I found the arguments by David Eppstein convincing.Whizkin (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:PROF#C1 as discussed by David. --hroest 17:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR by sources indicated above. gidonb (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1, WP:AUTHOR as above — LittleDwangs (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anarchy Alive! There is no extended reliable, secondary source coverage of note about the author himself, discounting passing mentions and interviews (which are primary sources). The most that has been written about him are the academic reviews of his book Anarchy Alive which are already in that dedicated article, as they're more about the book than the author. That Anarchists Against the Wall has one academic review (not counting Fifth Estate, which is a partisan periodical) does not bring us any more closer to being able to write a dedicated biography that does justice to Gordon. The standard here is to cover the author within his book article, if he's better known for that book than for any other thing. czar 01:27, 25 June 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 23:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahwahnee Heritage Days

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

Little coverage of event to be found, thereby failing WP:GNG. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, History, and Popular culture. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very little coverage, fails WP:NEVENT. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogo Blay

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

An article about a musician that doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN. The reality show he won wasn't notable as it would have been redirected there. After accessing the sources, I can say this article's context, and sourcing is not enough for our general notability guidelines. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Africa, and Ghana. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails MUSICIAN and GNG. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator, as the musician is only visible in his own social media and self-uploading sites, and the reality show victory is insignificant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Renewal6 (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Klingenberg

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

Theatre actor/director/manager with no evidence of notability. Single reference provided is from a wiki. No notable works (regardless of WP:NOTINHERITED anyway). MIDI (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know where you looked. I looked at the German Wikipedia, and saw solid biographies for sources, and several notable awards. I don't know what kind of "works" you expect from an actor and stage director. His prime was well before the internet, so no wonder that there few online reviews. - I'm willing to expand the article, but won't have time before Monday. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the sources are good enough to use you could transfer them over to the English Wikipedia article. Procyon117 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly read my comment to the end: yes, but I have no free time until Monday. You can begin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I can’t see how notability is in question at all. The subject was accorded the highest civil honour by the Austria for services to the republic. Mccapra (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There is significant coverage in highly reliable German sources — Zeit [14], Süddeutsche Zeitung [15]. There is article in Der Standard [16].

As was mentioned, he does have awards, see German wikipage. There are notable works. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Taking the page about an obviously notable director to Afd the day after his death is wrong. And Prodding the page about one of his films (Was wäre, wenn...?) with no evidence of any basic BEFORE was wrong too (I deproDed it and expanded it). Nominator, please kindly withdraw. Just read the obituary in Die Zeit (https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2024-06/theaterdirektor-regisseur-gerhard-klingenberg). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The man was a star in the Deutscher Sprachraum. Just because we didn't hear much about him in the English-speaking world, that doesn't make him unnotable. Oh, and by the way, I'll see what I can do to improve the article. Kelisi (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Se-tenant (disambiguation)

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

I fail to find any reference that the term se-tenant is a type of house. - Altenmann >talk 15:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: didn't find either any mention in a dictionary of se-tenant also means semi-detached house. If it's a regionalism, we could create a redirect, but the disamb page would still be unnecessary. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I also thought is a French-language regionalism eg in Louisiana, but it must be discussed in the target article before we make any kind of disambiguation.- Altenmann >talk 16:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Semi-detached house, also known as a se-tenant house" is WP:OR not backed up by anything in the target article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:52, 23 June 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 Chacha Chaudhary#Adaptation. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Chaudhary (2002 TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. It only has two ref. M S Hassan (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and bioth are dead links to TV listings. - Altenmann >talk 16:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chacha Chaudhary] - Altenmann >talk 16:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chacha_Chaudhary#Adaptation. Poor sources with no indepth coverage and reviews. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chacha_Chaudhary#Adaptation. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:11, 25 June 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 speedy keep‎. To the nominator, you can't rely on just a Google search. Please do a more thorough BEFORE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Cromartie

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

Before I had to look into the reference section of the article I had to google about the subject and there was no significant coverage about the subject. I don’t see how he is notable. The only news was about his signing, in other meaning, fails to meet WP:GNG. The bunch of source on the article 95% was just singing and profile, nothing else. Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, American football, and Handball. Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Unquestionably notable as a four-season modern NFL player with extensive coverage (as anyone with his credentials would have): [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] etc. Clearly notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Louisiana, Texas, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's very clearly enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by BeanieFan easily meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG.--Mooon FR (talk) 20:07, 19 June 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 Inferior Five. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Brigade

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

Non-notable superhero "team" that only appeared in two issues as gag characters related to the more notable Inferior Five. The article is sourced only to the comic issues themselves, and searches turn up no significant coverage on the characters at all. What very little there is that mentions the group is merely repeating that they were made up as part of the backstories for the Inferior Five. Merging to an article like List of teams and organizations in DC Comics would be inappropriate, not only due to the extreme lack of sourcing, but due to the fact that they were never actually a real team in the comics. At best, this could be redirected to the Inferior Five article, but given the extreme obscurity of the topic, I am not convinced it would even be a useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Rorshacma (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inferior Five per WP:ATD - it is the cruftiest of fancruft that is even possible, one-off background characters in service of another character's backstory. If the Inferior Five is also deleted or redirected, then this should probably be straight-up deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. It's questionable if this meets WP:N, but this is a valid WP:ATD for now. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:02, 26 June 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. This was almost certainly heading for deletion anyway, but there's no point wasting further editor time on it, because in addition to the other reasons for deletion, it qualifies for speedy deletion criterion G5, as the article was created by Abdiaziizho while evading multiple blocks. JBW (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Som Production (SP)

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

The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for companies and the article is written like an advertisement. Ae245 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ae245 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that a CSD A7 tag was placed on the page and then removed without much proper attempt to fix the problems makes me vote delete too. Procyon117 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wrote promotionally, sources are only primary. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, and Somalia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP, the somali inside news ref looks like a paid placement and certainly reads like an ad, a bouncewatch entry doesn't count for notability, and is little moe than a database entry anyway. All other sources primary, and searching does not come up with anything else. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:1823:FC07:8CDE:1454 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet notability guidelines and is promotional. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdirahman Ali. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The fact that this page is deleted and then removed without much proper attempt to solve the problems is my vote keep too.192.145.175.211 (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC) This comment was posted by Abdiaziizho while evading multiple blocks. JBW (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if secondary sources are added, and article is reworded to be less like an advert (per WP:5P2, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ADVOCACY). —Mjks28 (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Who can tell me why this article should be deleted while it can be revised and strengthened with additional sources? You may have a different opinion than mine.Somalipictures (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC) This comment was posted by Abdiaziizho while evading multiple blocks. JBW (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please list them, because I'm not able to find any that's significant, reliable, secondary and independent of this subject. Ae245 (talk) 11:38, 23 June 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. Superficially, views appear evenly split between Keep and Delete. Closer inspection, however, shows the Delete views to be solidly anchored in notability guidelines, while the Keep views who bother to provide a reason all hang their !vote on WP:AUTHOR criterion #2 - "originating a significant new concept", for coining the term "soft addiction", without providing any evidence that the term is, indeed, significant or new. In fact, even an ATD in the form of a redirect to Soft addiction, which itself is a redirect to Behavioral addiction, would be odd, seeing as Wright's name isn't even mentioned in the target. And as some pointed out, coining a term that is not a significant new concept doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR C#2. Once the "soft addiction" basis is discarded as not supporting notability, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 23:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Sewell Wright

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Mdann52 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Law. Mdann52 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find book reviews, so not passing AUTHOR. No mentions in media that i can find, what's now used for sourcing in the article is primary or linked to paper sources that I can't locate online. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you need reviews for the books, they are in the Amazon postings of the books. I may not be a Wikipedia expert, but I do know that Judith has, in fact, written these books. If you want to look her up as an author in general: https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AJudith+Wright+EdD&s=relevancerank&text=Judith+Wright+EdD&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1

Does that somehow not qualify? I do not understand. KreftMM (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KreftMM: By "reviews" we normally mean articles discussing books and covering them in depth, not just reviews on shopping sites. Mdann52 (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that feedback. It will help me in other regards - however, I am no longer working on Judith's Wikipedia page in any regard. KreftMM (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. in WP:AUTHOR, one of the criteria for notability is that 'The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique'. It looks to me like Wright is either the originator of the concept of soft addiction or at the very least a leading author on the topic. Also, I can find book reviews- I am not sure where you were looking.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024

@Spiralwidget: I note the soft addiction thing - but I don't know if it's a "significant new" concept, as the concept seemed to be known and studied under the name "behaviour addition" from before her time (and the article redirects there now) - however with that being the only claim to notability, I didn't think it met the bar. Mdann52 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC) EDIT: I have to review this as instead a Comment. I could not find reviews outside of Amazon Books and she seems to receive remarkably little attention by major publications.

Reviews are available on the books in every place they are available for purchase. I can also provide additional book reviews, as well as sources for where she has been in the media. Such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlE0y5gYH1I, https://www.grandmagazine.com/2018/03/transformational-learning-age/, https://beta.prx.org/stories/94668, https://blacktortoisepress.com/tag/oprah-winfrey-show/

I'll admit that I don't know what types of sources are preferred on Wikipedia, but I can assure you I can provide the right kind if you educate me. KreftMM (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too knowledgeable either, but per WP:RSPRIMARY, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over others. Procyon117 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Illinois, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wright's coining of soft addiction, per WP:AUTHOR, makes her notable. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR, according soft addiction.--Mooon FR (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I refined my search to "Judith Wright" + soft addictions, and found multiple sources through ProQuest and Newspapers.com and through Google that verify she did coin the term. Sacramento Bee, Sac Bee continued, Orlando Sentinel, author, Judith Wright, coined the term "soft addictions" more than 12 years ago, Judith Wright, who labeled the phenomenon more than a decade ago, a term she coined several years ago, so she appears to meet WP:AUTHOR#2. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources provided by Isaidnoway, WP:AUTHOR#2 is satisfied. Sal2100 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can provide references to reliable, fully independent sources that devote significant coverage to Sewell Wright. Sources brought forward are passing mentions of her, and quotations from her, generated by the marketing campaigns for her books. Sources that call her a "life coach and lifestyles expert" are clearly parroting her self promotional activities. Yes, she coined the phrase "soft addiction" but that refers to a psychiatric condition and she has no known formal training in psychiatry or psychology or psychotherapy or counseling or anything relevant. As for Amazon reviews, they are worthless for establishing notability since Amazon is in the business of selling almost everything including non-notable books by non-notable authors, as in this case. She is definitely not a "leading author" on Behavioral addiction. Many of the leading authors are in the reference section of that well-referenced article, and she is not among them. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given by Cullen328, at least for now. No editor has yet provided examples of significant coverage of "soft addiction" in fully independent non-promotional venues/outlets. As far as I can tell, all the links to news clippings above are associated with Wright's books, interviews directly with Wright, promotions of her seminars, or all three. SunTunnels (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article needs an update, it certainly meets the notability criteria. Bexaendos (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bexaendos, please point out reliable sources completely independent of Sewell Wright that devote significant coverage to Sewell Wright. Cullen328 (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Datu Mombao Romato

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

Non-notable local politician. As mayor, does not meet NPOL presumed notability. Could not find any sources suitable to satisfy the GNG, references are to facebook posts and reports (primary). microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as of now, not enough SIGCOV to satisfy GNG. Was only able to find five mentions of this person, all of which were mere mentions in lists. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator

TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:23, 24 June 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 13:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise Miles

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

Lack of referencing to prove notability. Source 1 is the best thing in the article, and it's fairly trivial (it's a promotion, not a news story). Sources 2, 5 and 7 are unavailable. Source 3 is an advert. Source 4 is clearly promotional copy. Source 6 deals with a different company and source 8 is not reliable. And the official website link in the External links section is dead. Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find their website on ROL Cruises and a few links to travel companies that offer this reward program. Noting for notability found; the source analysis in the nom is spot-on. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 20 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hip Abduction

AfDs for this article:

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

Do not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Most sources available appears to be routine coverage. Two previous AfDs however no more recent sourcing appears to be out there. Mdann52 (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Florida. Mdann52 (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Since the last AfD they finally achieved a few feature articles in their local news media, currently at footnotes #1 and #3. They might just barely meet the minimum requirements for reliable coverage at WP:NBAND, though I will not dispute anyone who questions whether those sources are significant. The band's name is brilliant BTW. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think those are "significant" hence the nomination (and I would argue those sources are routine, but that's open for debate I guess!) Mdann52 (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the feature articles mentioned above they also have an AllMusic staff written bio here although it is on the short side. Haven't done a full search yet. There is also the claim that they had a release chart on a specialist Billboard Regae chart. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've noticed many past users have tried to add this article to Wikipedia several times, and it definitely has enough sources to prove its notability. I've seen articles on the site with far less sources that are significant enough to keep. BeatBro (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two articles mentioned by Doomsdayer [22][23] show sigcov. Footnote 5 [24], although an interview, has a decently long intro. I'd argue that these meet the GNG. The other two footnotes don't count, as one is a show announcement and the other is way too short. The News Herald source mentions that "The Hip Abduction has embarked on a national tour that began in early March." Since that was 2020, I'm not sure how the tour ended up going, but it should meet item 4 of NBAND: Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of [...] a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Toadspike [Talk] 18:45, 26 June 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. Received confirmation from blocking admin that the creating user was indeed the sock of a blocked user blocked before the creation of this article, making the article WP:CSD#G5 eligible. ‎. UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kolomiets

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

Not notable spam page; created by a WMF globally banned user (banned for block evasion also). The sources are not enough to establish notability Waterproof fish (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it as the article is nominated by one of Bodiadub's socks. I’m also asking to do a check on User:Hypeconomist, user:Shefeditor along with the user:Waterproof fish account. All accounts are united by the fact that they have a small number of edits. All three accounts remove the same information from the article, which is related to Global Ledger company. I ask the User:MER-C checkuser to pay attention to this information. Король мавп (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Israel, and Ukraine. UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 19 June 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. This seems to be going the way of WP:SNOW keep due to existing sources that were missed by the nominator. As I would !vote keep as well, might as well close this to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Next Door (anime)

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

Unsourced. Search results for both the anime and eroge show a bunch of anime with similar names but not exactly this one, except for Anime News Network's encyclopedia. Fails notability. Neocorelight (Talk) 10:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. Neocorelight (Talk) 10:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I searched for: "Girl Next Door" "anime" -demon and didn't find anything. Searching for "Girl Next Door" "eroge" showed nothing either. Dream Focus 12:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator didn't bother to look at the talk page where you can see a bunch of reviews listed, all reliable sources per WP:A&M/ORS. 2 reviews by Mania.com (former AnimeOnDVD): [25], [26], review by THEM Anime Reviews, review by Animefringe, paragraph in an article by ANN. ANN is not SIGCOV but the other sites' coverage is enough to meet WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, sorry, because there's no hint at all that there's something in the talk page. Neocorelight (Talk) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE says to check the talk page before nominating. Also when you're editing the article and the talk page has a "refideas" template, at the top of the page there's a note that reads: "There are suggestions on this article's talk page for references that may be useful when improving this article in the future." --Mika1h (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also might note that although the Hentai Jump is an unreliable source, the review is by Mike Toole, who later wrote for Anime News Network: [27]. --Mika1h (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; based on the sources provided by Mika1h, this clearly meets WP:GNG since at least the Mania and THEM sources are reliable and significant coverage. Link20XX (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources found giving it significant coverage. Dream Focus 14:23, 19 June 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 13:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St David's School, Purley

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school. The best I can find is this brief article in the local paper about the children making a music video, which seems run of the mill and not worth adding. I do not think the school meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability whatsoever. Cannot find anything else either. Procyon117 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 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 13:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivano Bertini (astronomer)

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

The astronomer doesn't seem to be notable. There are only two references in the page, both from minorplanetcenter.net, and there isn't a single article that discuss Bertini. Ok, there's a minor planet named after him, but I don't think that this is enough Redjedi23 (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that the article was written by Ivano Bertini himself. Redjedi23 (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a minor planet named after you, for a minor planet researcher, is commonplace even for quite junior researchers; I don't think it's a sign of notability. When checking citation counts, it's important to distinguish the Padua/Naples astronomer (this subject) from the Florence chemist (who looks notable to me). Astronomy can be a high-citation subject with many coauthors, where I think first-author position is quite important. Unfortunately the chemist makes it difficult to search for publications by author name and we don't have a Google Scholar profile to go by. However, preliminary searching found that his significant publications include "67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko" (the name of a comet) in their title. Filtering for that found 87 publications, among which his first-author publications have citation counts 64, 21, 16. Some other publications among that set have much higher citation counts. Some of his first-author publications have no citations at all. So he seems to be part of a successful research team but has not stood out from the team as the leader of its most important works. I did also find separately first-author publications "Modeling of the light scattering properties of cometary dust using fractal aggregates" (57 cites), "Activity evolution, outbursts, and splitting events of comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3" (19 cites), and "Photometric observations of comet 81P/Wild 2 during the 2010 perihelion passage" (14 cites), still not enough for WP:PROF#C1. He has a textbook Fundamentals of Astronomy but was added as an author only for the second edition of the book, so I don't think that counts for enough either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. David is spot on here, as usual. Qflib (talk) 16:29, 25 June 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 13:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olfat Berro

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

Non-notable business executive Runmastery (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Bibliographies. Runmastery (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items about this person's appointment to various positions. Not meeting notability and lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Created by now-blocked User:Content.Media2023 (Spams / advertising-only account). The only other article this user created is declined Draft:Hassan Ezzeldine, which also needs to be deleted. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 19 June 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. There is a consensus here to Delete this article. Article subject doesn't have the necessary notability for their own article. It might be TOOSOON. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepankaj Poonia

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO, with only minor roles so far and no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Declined five times at draft for same reasons, and speedied twice as spam, for which another single-purpose account was eventually indefinitely blocked for advertising. Wikishovel (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Rajasthan. Wikishovel (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what's your problem ? , every time you nominate for deletion, are you taking any personal revenge or you didn't get paid for this article creation. 103.206.172.223 (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log back in. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so what's your problem ? if he did minor roles, at least he is doing his job, and trying very hard to make his name , people like you don 't support it, you just keep deleting , because you didn't get paid for that and getting jealous , you just support nepotism

indefinitely blocked for advertising - Because some fellow people created his articles so that so people like you delete it later as spam.

this time gave mentioned valid references , and it should be not deleted . 103.206.172.223 (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t pass unnecessary comments, be polite and follow Wikipedia guidelines Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided valid references. It doesn’t matter if someone did small roles or big , we need to appreciate it . And help to create articles for them . Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia isn't intended to document every actor who's ever appeared in a film: that's the job of film databases like IMDB. There are notability guidelines and policies for Wikipedia, which in this case include notability of actors, notability of people and the general notability guidelines. Articles on Wikipedia aren't meant to help someone or something become notable, but rather to document people and things which are already notable. Wikishovel (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough mentions in RS (hardly any), not meeting notability. I can only find what's used in the article, none of which prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Google Knowledge Panel, IMDb links, and movie articles are enough for it as its first project. Also, it was not a minor role, but a significant one, showing a guest role. It is better not to delete the article and to support it." Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If there is a mistake in the article, it's better to correct it rather than appeal to delete it. It doesn’t make any sense." Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mistake, but I can't correct it as using IMdB is not a reliable source, the Google knowledge panel is not a reliable source and the movie links are trivial coverage. We require stories about the person, not a laundry list of things they've done. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For stories news articles wants huge amounts of money to publish, and there is no connection with them , if you have any you can give and ask to publish stories or I can connect you with the actor, you can ask the details and create an article.

there nothing I can do it now , if you want to delete article then delete , I’m done with this , this so frustrating, gonna delete my account too , not gonna use Wikipedia though

good bye Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ole Aale. That seems to be the first movie he was in, so it would make sense, even though the article is very weak. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about a person's first movie serve as important historical records of their career's beginning. They provide context and background that can be valuable for understanding their professional development and trajectory over time. Deleting these articles would erase critical early documentation of their work and contributions, which could be of interest to fans, researchers, and industry professionals. Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It's better to delete the previous articles but not this one. If the article is very weak, try to help and make it stronger." Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and thus fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. Let me also comment on someone's statement above that "if the article is very weak, try to help and make it stronger." Without significant coverage in reliable sources, there is nothing to make stronger, and any attempts to do so would still fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a platform for documenting and promoting individuals who have not yet met the notability criteria. Zingarese talk · contribs (please mention me on reply; thanks!) 03:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Don’t delete @Oaktree b@TheChronikler7@Wikishovel@Zingarese
He is not only an actor; he is a model too. Check his work; he has collaborated with many brands. Attached are a few links to his work. This article is not to be deleted.

According to Wikipedia guidelines, a person may be considered notable if they have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He has achieved this through his work in film and his extensive modeling projects with various brands.

This version includes the guideline reference and provides context for his notability.

https://cooldown.co.in/products/72-orange-mens-sando

https://watch.plex.tv/person/deepankaj-poonia

https://www.filmiforest.com/celebs/deepankaj-poonia/biography.html

https://www.lavanguardia.com/peliculas-series/personas/deepankaj-poonia-4426303

https://www.gadgets360.com/entertainment/ole-aale-movie-123077

https://rangmarathi.com/tag/ole-aale-movie-booking/

Deepankaj Poonia

https://g.co/kgs/nc1R26p Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet WP:NACTOR. TheChronikler7 (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Dont delete- here are few articles about him.

https://starsgazette.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://www.livenewsviews.com/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films-81782431190430385 https://malaysiantalks.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://thewitnessdaily.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://suratkhabar.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://starjournals.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://buzzingasia.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://dailyinsidescoop.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://enterhollywood.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978 Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel@Oaktree b@TheChronikler7@Zingarese@ kindly close the discussion and remove deletion from article. as now given sources. Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the same article multiple times and it's a press release, which is not a reliable source. None of these are helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and obvious UPE target.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:49, 25 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial College School

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to consider against the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uganda. JMWt (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not seeing any notability here either. Only thing remotely notable is the other places it has ties with. Procyon117 (talk) 14:15, 19 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toyen (band)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. The article is also long-time unsourced and has other issues. FromCzech (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The Czech Wikipedia article also is unsourced and lacks any reliable secondary source, which might help otherwise. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:21, 23 June 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 Warwick, Rhode Island. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Police Department

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. WP:FAILN - organizations local to a city, town or country maybe added to respective article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick,_Rhode_Island Wikilover3509 (talk) 6:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redir to the city government, as the only non-routine information has to do with it being featured on a reality show, a matte which can be disposed of in a sentence. Mangoe (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the applicable city government, as Mangoe suggests.71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangoe; ping me if sources are found. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:56, 24 June 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 Ultraman (1966 TV series)#Monsters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jirahs

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

Fails notability guidelines. Tried to do a WP:BEFORE search, but found zero sigcov. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ultraman or a to-be-created villains/characters article where individually NN fictional elements like this can be curated appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the appropropriate page, specifically Ultraman as proposed by Jclemens in an above comment.71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD and to achieve consensus. This doesn't have WP:SIGCOV but it can be summarized at the main topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultraman (1966 TV series)#Monsters: This monster has not received any significant coverage in a single reliable source. The closest would be a brief article on a purchasable statuette of the character. Much of the content of this article is discussed in the article on the show that the character first appeared in. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultraman (1966 TV series)#Monsters - This monster is actually already covered in a couple sentences in that section already, and there are no sources to indicate that this monster is particularly notable enough to warrant more than those couple of sentences. Rorshacma (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Curzon Price

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. JFHJr (㊟) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Politics, Economics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per The Telegraph (well beyond the Wikipedia:One hundred words suggestion for SIGCOV) and because we usually set the bar a little lower for sources that we might cite. (BTW, JFHJr, it's not necessary for an article to have a "particular claim to notability". Were you thinking about Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, which is a WP:CSD thing?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular claim to notability is in regards to finding a more specific criterion than GNG. Where are the multiple independent (unrelated to the subject) reliable sources providing significant coverage? JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is the one Telegraph article, but everything else that I find is non-independent. I find only a few academic articles and the citation counts are low (barely double and often single digits, one at 166 cites). Lamona (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Potter

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Try https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ > https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/27/ > his name in Maryland newspapers. The Frederick News-Post seems to carry the most coverage, with hundreds of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- based on his position as a county executive, I expected to give a delete opinion as that's the normal outcome for such roles. But a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post suggests he was considered notable beyond the typical holder of such a position. The other details (Plaza named for him) wouldn't generally be enough on their own, but together with the obit pushes above the bar for GNG keep. (would not pass WP:PROF on its own). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington County is literally suburbs of Washington DC, so the existence of a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post just suggests the exact same purely local notability that any county executive in any county could always show, and is not in and of itself enough to singlehandedly determine that he's more notable than the norm. So we would need to see a hell of a lot more than just that alone. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I thought of that, but the Washington Post is not a local newspaper in the same way that say that Arlington Sun-Gazzette is. It was written by their same obituary staff as their other obituaries. I think that a look at their current obituaries will show that obituaries in the paper are dedicated to people whom they believe have more than local notability. I don't see, for instance, other local officials or former high school sports coaches there, except in the paid death notices section. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I live in the county, and I only recognized the name on a "that rings a bell" basis. He lived, he was county executive, he did county exec things, he retired, and he died. I just don't see the notability; I'm sure he was competent (or else he surely would have an article!) but the language of his term is that of press releases, which argues he did nothing that attracted greater notice. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the Post and the Times are the de facto local papers of the area given the demise of almost all the county level papers, but in any case they would report such an obituary as a matter of record. Mangoe (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Those obituaries are not sufficient to establish encyclopedia value. Otherwise, every single person who ever had an obituary in those would get their own Wikipedia article. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberales Institut

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2012 if ever. JFHJr (㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, Politics, and Switzerland. JFHJr (㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start by ignoring the WP:ITSUNREFERENCED claim by the nom, since that's one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This is a difficult subject to research because this report indicates that there are two organizations with the same name and similar views, which makes finding sources more challenging than usual. Also, it's Swiss, so you really need to search under four different names (German, French, Italian, and English). This is time-consuming, so it's not surprising that people might do a cursory search, find nothing, and give up.
I think it might make more sense to treat this subject like a scholarly publisher than like a business or a social club. I would particularly consider WP:NMEDIA's "frequently cited by other reliable sources" as a possibility. As for sources, this Swiss-German article looks potentially useful, and I notice that the article at the French Wikipedia cites five sources (none of which are the org's website). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the five is plainly the subject's website in the French WP. I'll do my best to look into the others. I'm open to withdrawing my nomination if it's clear to me or to a consensus that the coverage is in-depth. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked at the sources in the French article [28] is an interview with a minimal description of the institute, this is about a prize given out/details on the winner [29]. The German ones I'm unable to translate as they block access while at work, might have to review at home later... Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked on the sources that appear on the francophone wiki and they appear to be passing mention; the Wilhelm Röpke award appears in a secondary source, but itself does not appear to be a major award. But quality wise, that source may come closest to in-depth coverage as far as fr wiki goes. JFHJr (㊟) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of German sources that go beyond passing mention. Will work on article. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weka keep: Probably enough for a basic article about this institute, in addition to the sources I explained above, [30] describes their work, but it's a few lines only. This book talks about them [31] Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything approaching SIRS here -- a couple sentences parroting the org's self-description in one book is not enough to count towards NORG, let alone meet it. The main de.wp news source is a report on an event/speaker that the institute helped organize at a university, its only coverage is a one-sentence description and some info relayed by its director, so it handily fails SIRS. The other de.wp source is non-independent as it was written by a disgruntled former member. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, thank you very much. A well-explained characterization of the German sources was very much needed and helpful. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very easy to find new sources on this one. Will get started, there's plenty of German and English-language secondary sources which are admissible as evidence of notability as per Wikipedia policy language is not a factor in whether a source can be used.Wickster12345 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are academic secondary sources where the Liberales Institut and its work have been profiled and NOT just mentioned in passing. I have included some and will continue adding. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The texts you added are a primary research paper, the findings of which are not DUE and whose only secondary coverage of LI is Outside the UK, the next oldest organization included in our analyses is Liberales Institut (LI), established in Zurich, Switzerland in 1979. A declared follower of the Austrian School of Economics,, which is far from SIGCOV; and findings from a conference co-organized by LI (not independent). Neither of these counts toward SIRS. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree on both points.

1.There is no evidence the findings from the conference co-organized by LI (which is not the publisher either) were themselves made by someone with LI affiliation him or herself. Whether there is evidence showing this author's affiliation with Liberales Institut is what matters here. There is no such evidence. One can go to and report on a conference without being a member of the organization or even supporting the organization in any concrete way. If you can provide evidence sufficiently tying LI to the author, then I take it back.

2. The secondary coverage of LI goes way beyond the line you just reproduced. The entire article can be argued to be secondary coverage because it is filled with analysis, graphs and comparisons of LI with other Euro think tanks, without explicitly invoking the name "Liberales Institut". The fact that LI is notable enough to be analyzed and scrutinized in-depth in an independent secondary source (which happens to be an academic source) means it is notable. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:JoelleJay, one more thing, in dismissing the one current German-language source with the "disgruntled ex-member" (I would dispute this characterization by the way) as not independent, in my my opinion we are committing a textbook version of the mistake of "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.'" from Wikipedia:Independent_sources. Liberales Institut is not a company and Kohler is not gaining in any way from publishing criticism, in and of itself, outside of, maybe a sense of being right. I recall reading the essay and it never seemed like Kohler wanted to hurt LI's financial interests or existence, it seems more like he became ideologically disenchanted and explained why, which is fair game and notable coverage if one of Switzerland's main magazines picks it up. ''Wickster12345 (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kohler is not independent of the institute, therefore what he says about it does not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter what type of relationship he had with it or how neutral his coverage of it is; the attention he gives to LI does not demonstrate that it is a subject of significant interest to people with zero affiliation with the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my reading of Wikipedia policy that I just quoted and explained for you: Yes the type of relationship the author of a source has with the subject matters very much because the question is about Kohler's "personal gain" by discussing the subject, which you have not, with sufficient evidence explained how has any personal skin in the game. He has no personal vested interest just by virtue of being an ex-members. If he were Head of a rival institute then, I think you may have a point. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, "personal gain" is not the only reason we require sources to be completely independent of the topics they cover in order to count towards notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.

there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.
Kohler is clearly affiliated, his article is therefore clearly not evidence of attention that is uninfluenced by anyone with a connection to LI. Independence is also not determined by whether some editor thinks a source would profit from covering a topic, it is established by the actual relationship an author has with the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m happy to go into why I feel the policy you reproduced in fact strengthens the argument for inclusion, but I feel it is moot with the addition of the NZZ article, please see my statement below by this is in fact an independent source. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's one, what are the others (again independent and unrelated) that provide in-depth coverage? It's not just one, it's multiple required. JFHJr (㊟) 04:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are three independent in-depth secondary sources as of now (four arguably if one includes the article by Kohler). Wickster12345 (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this. you mentioned: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." The fact is Kohler, as one of the unsigned posters I believe hinted at (although I may have misunderstood their overall point), was no longer affiliated with LI at the time of writing his article. There is no temporal definition of "affiliation" with a subject per WP so we should not assume to impose a supposed 'common-sense' temporal understanding (you're de facto saying Kohler is forever affiliated just because he once was a leading member of LI) of affiliation in this case. I believe in lieu of a WP definition of how much time needs to have been elapsed for Kohler not be considered affiliated with LI we should probably assume him unaffiliated making the source count because it was published otherwise independently. That's like saying Obama commenting on a little-known policy of Trump's in an independent policy journal cannot count towards that policy having received independent, significant coverage, because Obama had the same job as Trump and was in some of the same circles. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. The sourcing on this page is passable and enough to justify it, but it should surely be improved.71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem to me looks like no unrelated source or sources in combination satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH for depth or WP:GNG for significance. To get there, editors appear to rely on publications by parties that are not unrelated. A glance at the current number of sources does not make the problem quite apparent. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found another article in the major independent Swiss daily newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (a different newspaper than the source covering the ex-member Kohler's view) covering the Liberales Institut in-depth (from 2004). I used the NZZ archive tool (- Archiv (nzz.ch)). It's now cited in the article. I think at this point, at the very least, notability and independence have been established. I actually disagree with you that all the other already existing sources fail the two policies you mention, but I think that disagreement is moot now. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source is an interview with the LI's Robert Nef, it is listed here on his website's list of his publications and the full transcript is here. It is not an independent or secondary source and does not count toward NCORP/GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JoelleJay's characterization here. And I hope the closing admin takes into account the better reasoned conclusions over simply conclusory characterizations. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I almost expected you might go to his website (not a criticism just an observation) as opposed to accessing the NZZ archive. If you read the ORIGINAL NZZ article there is a section in the same page which gives an in-depth history of the LI. So I think you’re mistaken and selectively focusing on the part of the NZZ page that you can access through Nef’s website alone. I’m happy to send you the original if you want. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, give me a look at it. My email link should be open. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I never got a look at the alleged difference. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your email link. I'm still happy to send to you Wickster12345 (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just figured out the email link system :) . One cannot send attachments via email link I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong. The article is on the NZZ archives which you can alternately subscribe to. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the closing admin defers to the Wikipedia policy and codified notion of consensus which, so far, as I write this, is NOT clearly in favor deletion, cheers Wickster12345 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, The criteria are met, 2 good secondary sources. Subject has press attention and independent media (never heard of these Swiss (?) newspapers but are kinda independent and authoritative) coverage. I've been studying lots of deletion discussions on here and I finally got the confidence to get involved in one :)...Based on other discussions I've seen on here interviews with people affiliated with a subject doesn't disqualify the source for showing notability if the interviews are published in independent sources and are not promotional. Re the Kohler source: I dont see anywhere on Wikipedia anybody defining how long ago an affiliation has to be for a source to gain independt status so by default im gonna say lack of formal affiliation at time of publication is enough. Peace folkss 2601:640:8A02:3C40:D996:AFF9:6B1F:E0FA (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 3-4 qualifying sources, although I tendentially agree with your arguments. As a side note: I do not agree that studying deletion discussions as precedent is the best way to learn, by the way, as the dynamic of every deletion discussion is different. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This "institute" seems to go by a variety of different names, most notably the various German conjugations of "Liberales Institut" (liberalem, liberale, liberalen), as well as the more specific "Liberalen Institut in Zürich". I found this highly critical article [32], which is far beyond what's needed for SIGCOV. I'm certain this is the same institute: It was founded in Zurich in 1979 and has a strong "liberal" bent (btw, in Switzerland "liberal" is equivalent to "right-wing" or "conservative" in other countries).

Searching for NZZ articles in PressReader, I've found an article covering a "study" they produced that criticizes Swiss agricultural import policy and this article titled "Kein Wettbewerb beim Geld" that I can't find elsewhere online about an event they held in 2010. There are also reviews of several books they have published, e.g. [33][34][35][36], the last of which briefly comments on the institute itself. The NZZ is a liberal newspaper, but is highly reputable, so I don't think that bias should be considered disqualifying here. There are also brief mentions in SRF that two notable people are members [37][38], and PressReader shows three hits in Le Temps which I cannot view without a subscription. Toadspike [Talk] 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A search at E-newspaperarchives.ch [39] returns 101 results, some of which are advertisements or false positives, but many are clearly articles about this subject. The paywalls are a pain, though. Toadspike [Talk] 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toadspike. GNG seems met. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG with multiple sources and multiple interwikis. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:26, 27 June 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. As the delete !voters note, this lacks valid, reliable evidence of sustained notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Liberal

AfDs for this article:

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

Years ago this term was circulated once on social media by right wing trolls, but there is no significant coverage of this non-notable term in any reliable sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Internet celebrity. Although, that seems to have a potential move afoot to rename it "Influencer". IMO, "Influencer" and "Adarsh Liberal" have a lot in common - they're both flash terminology of the moment, used to define any number of personalities. — Maile (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Popular culture, Internet, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Article cleary fails WP:GNG. Written in POV and fan voice.च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 12:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't merge, the term is too area specific to be known outside the area. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The term gained some traction online [40] and [41]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable term from social media and memes. WP:DICDEF. RangersRus (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term has gained traction in the mainstream media and passes WP:GNG News Laundry ,Hindustan Times ,India Today ,BBC ,The News Minute,The Indian Express,Deccan Herald,The Economic Times ,NDTV ,Scroll ,News18.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently, all of the sources listed above come from the same time when the meme was trending. No evidence of lasting coverage. CharlesWain (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Pharaoh of the Wizards, passes WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out a couple of sources that ensure the subject meets WP:GNG? Ratnahastin (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sustaining coverage, just another Twitter war only cared about by a small group of people who need to go outside. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 19 June 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. I'm choosing to close this discussion as the nominator is a sock and the only participant here after a relisting is very new and has made only 20 edits. Any editor in good standing can refile a new AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Münzner-Linder

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

Delete: Fails NMUSICIAN and reliable sourcing to confirm notability. Tkaras1 (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Only reliable and accessible sourcing I could find by Google search was this link, which alone does not seem sufficient. Her name is apparently not even spelled correctly! Tkaras1 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article needs a significant update, Ursula it seems that he died in 2011, but even an update I don't think will be able to keep the article.--Mooon FR (talk) 20:54, 19 June 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 see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ksolves India Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are largely earning reports and announcements, considered trivial coverage. Others fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing more than a business directory listing. This might even qualify for A7 speedy deletion: there is nothing currently in the article that even remotely suggests notability, just that it exists, it has products (but none are described), it works with the same tech products that every tech company works with, and it's publicly traded and reports earnings. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Ciudatul (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:LISTED guidelines, a publicly traded company is deemed notable if it has received independent press coverage and is cited in analyst reports. The article under discussion meets these criteria by including three credible analyst reports [42], [43], [44] and sufficient independent press coverage.Artyomolga (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 14:06, 20 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Murphy (Scottish footballer)

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

The three Daily Record pieces referenced are all interview-heavy with very little WP:SIGCOV of the subject and my searches do not yield much else. Subject fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: concur with @JTtheOG. It's too soon. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of independent, reliable sources raises concerns about the subject meeting WP:GNG. Waqar💬 19:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if this person becomes notable, it should be titled as Jess Murphy (footballer) as no other titles with that name and profession exist yet. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:58, 21 June 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 Timeline of the Syrian civil war. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012 Idlib bombings

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

A news story of no encyclopedic significance. No retrospective coverage or major societal effects to meet WP:NEVENT. Too short to warrant a merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, and Syria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Timeline of the Syrian Civil War per WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. No WP:SIGCOV either. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree with @Aydoh8's suggestion. Article was created just a few days after the event it covers happened, and only includes one source and is a WP:STUB. This article doesn't include any information that would be negatively affected by merging. Mjks28 (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Tiny event in a big war. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:17, 24 June 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. There is a rough consensus here to Keep this article. The deletion rationale doesn't mention any factors that can't be improved through careful editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten

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

WP:BLP issues - there are too many dubious and poorly-sourced claims in this article for an article about a living person. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bilateral relations, China, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tracked down a number of claims - service in Chinese parliament, involvement in Iran talks, chairing the East-West strategic studies institute, which are sourced and seem to raise at least a colorable claim of notability. The claim to serve in parliament is supported by The Diplomat article, but is probably misstated as it seems he took part in a Jilin Municipal level CPPCC meeting[45])] as opposed to service at the national level. Other claims like buying the palace, and testimony before parliament, are not very notable but are verifiable. And some other facts, like his history as a diplomat, are not well sourced although I haven't done searches to see if they are hoaxes. Why is this not a situation where the article can be edited rather than deleted? Oblivy (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a number of issues with this article that have concerned me for some time. They are most obvious when you consider it in conjunction with a group of related articles: Institute for East West Strategic Studies, Pfetten's foundation; Apethorpe Palace, his home and the foundation's office; Owen Matthews, the foundation's vice-chair; and the International Foxhound Association - currently also up for deletion - which Pfetten chairs.

Promotional content - the content these editors add tends to be highly promotional. Counter wise, repeated efforts are made to remove anything they consider "negative";

Authorship and COI - User talk:Prinkipo71 is the major contributor to this article, and its originator. They are also the major contributor to, and originator of, the Matthews article. User talk:Baronpfetten has also edited this. Prinkipo71 is also the second major contributor to the Apethorpe Palace article. They have described themselves as "Apethope's archivist and historian",[46]. The first contributor to the Institute article is an IP, the second, and its originator, is User talk:Baronpfetten, a user name which suggests an obvious COI. Baronpfetten is also the major contributor to, and the originator of, the International Foxhound Association article. Both Prinkipo71 and Baronpfetten are broadly single-purpose accounts, in that they only edit this group of articles. I think it highly likely there is a bunch of undeclared COI. It is also worth noting the contributions of User talk:StevenGui/User talk:GeorgeThuiller, to these articles and to that on Tactical nuclear weapon, [47]. After an initial denial Gui acknowledged they were employed by the Chinese government, to which Pfetten has close links. Oddly, Thuiller - an editor with 11 edits - took it upon themselves to edit a comment made by Gui, on Gui's own Talkpage, to amend Gui's acknowledgement that they work "for" the Chinese Government, to suggest that they work "with" it, [48]. Apart from Gui, none of the other editors has made any Conflict of Interest declarations regarding these articles.

SPA/IP editing - this is very common to all of the above, and I strongly suspect Checkuser would find connections. See, as one example, these edits, [49] to the IFA deletion discussion by User:Tintin2004123 who joined two days ago, specifically to try to stop the deletion, the only edits they have ever made.

In short, I think these articles are a mess of promotional editing from editors/IPs, all certainly connected and all with undeclared COIs. I have previously flagged it with ARBs, but it has not been taken forward, as far as I am aware. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my questions. I'm not sure this is something that falls within a deletion category, other than the catch-all not suitable tag (which is pretty weak sauce IMHO). OK, it's a coatrack, and it has assertions that are questionably supported by citations, and the language is promotional (although many biographies paint a positive picture of a person, particularly if they are not notorious for some bad thing). In my opinion, these content issues need to be worked out on article pages and talk pages, and not at AfD.

I'm also troubled that much of what you describe is based on suspicions of the editors, their conduct and their motives, rather than identifying notability issues with the article. AfD is not for conduct issues either. Surely if someone is being disruptive or displaying ownership behavior, there's a conduct guideline that can be invoked at ANI. Also, no policy says someone can't be an SPA, and AFAIK there's no policy saying you can't edit while under a COI (policy says "discouraged" and "should" regarding COI, disclosure is "must" for paid editing). Oblivy (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t doubt that you are procedurally right, and that AfD isn’t the best venue to address a lot of this. I would say that I have tried both the Talkpage discussion route, getting mostly silence or obfuscation; and the conduct reporting route, again getting silence. My concern is that what I am quite certain we have in these articles are editors writing about themselves/their interests, without being at all transparent as to their connections to the article subjects. For me, that fundamentally conflicts with our aim of being a reliable encyclopaedia, and does a grave disservice to our readers. KJP1 (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although the article has a section for Academic career, the subject seems to have published very few articles or books. I see little to no sign of WP:NPROF notability. I am skeptical of GNG. His house does appear to possibly be notable, and I suppose that redirection to a stub about the house would be an option. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be a way forward. I am very confident that Apethorpe Palace is notable, per Wikipedia:NBUILDING. It's a Grade I listed building, has a long and illustrious history, with notable owners/visitors, and it has been very extensively covered, in architectural publications, in historical journals and in the media. I'd certainly support a re-direct, which could also cover the Institute. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Leclair De Marco, Stéphanie (2007-10-01). "Jean-Christophe Iseux : Le mandarin de la Loire" [Jean-Christophe Iseux: The mandarin of the Loire]. Les Echos (in French). Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "A tout juste 40 ans, après une décennie passée en Chine, Jean-Christophe Iseux a décidé de revenir en France. Avec un projet en tête : faire de son château de la Loire un lieu de rencontre « personnel, élitiste et confidentiel, avec pas plus de 200 personnes ! » Sa cible ? Des leaders occidentaux et leurs homologues chinois et asiatiques. Ambitieux. Mais son excellente connaissance de la Chine et de ses gouvernants devrait lui permettre de réussir son projet. Son histoire d'amour avec l'empire du Milieu commence en 1996. Ingénieur géophysicien de formation, il oublie les sciences de la Terre pour celles de l'économie. Chercheur spécialisé dans la privatisation des entreprises d'Etat, passé par Oxford où, MBA en poche, il se concocte un remarquable carnet d'adresses, il devient le plus jeune représentant permanent aux Nations unies."
  From Google Translate: "At just 40 years old, after a decade spent in China, Jean-Christophe Iseux decided to return to France. With a project in mind: to make his Loire castle a “personal, elitist and confidential” meeting place, with no more than 200 people! » His target? Western leaders and their Chinese and Asian counterparts. Ambitious. But his excellent knowledge of China and its leaders should enable him to succeed in his project. His love affair with the Middle Kingdom began in 1996. A geophysicist engineer by training, he forgot Earth sciences for those of the economy. A researcher specializing in the privatisation of state enterprises, he went to Oxford where, with an MBA in hand, he built up a remarkable address book and became the youngest permanent representative to the United Nations."
2. Yu, Ying 余颖; Zhao, Xinyi 赵欣怡 (2021-09-22). Wu, Yidan 武一丹; Yu, Ying 余颖 (eds.). ""在英国重新发现中国：红色男爵的中国故事"讲座成功举办" ["Rediscovering China in the UK: The Red Baron's Chinese Story" Lecture Successfully Held]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "据介绍，易思男爵为法国贵族后裔，其家族与中国有深厚渊源。毕业于牛津大学坦普顿学院，曾任塞舌尔驻世贸组织代表、驻日内瓦裁军谈判会议代表、牛津大学管理学中心研究员、牛津大学赫特福德学院政策研究所中国研究中心主任等。从1997年起，易思男爵频繁赴华工作，先后担任清华大学访问学者、讲师、中国人民大学客座教授等，"
  From Google Translate: "According to reports, Baron Eise is a descendant of the French nobility, and his family has deep roots in China. He graduated from Templeton College, Oxford University, and has served as the Seychelles representative to the WTO, the representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, a researcher at the Oxford University Management Center, and the director of the China Research Center of the Hertford College Policy Institute, Oxford University. Since 1997, Baron Eise has frequently traveled to China for work, and has served as a visiting scholar and lecturer at Tsinghua University, and a visiting professor at Renmin University of China."
3. Kennedy, Maev (2016-06-13). "Red Baron's Jacobean Apethorpe Palace marks its rebirth with party". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "Just 18 months after Jean Christophe Iseux, Baron von Pfetten, spent £2.5m on a house with 48 bedrooms but no running water, he has decided to give a little party. ... Von Pfetten, a diplomat, Oxford academic and champion foxhound breeder, has been nicknamed “the Red Baron” for his years as an adviser to the Chinese government on everything from inward investment to Iran’s nuclear programme; the Chinese guests will include a government member and the head of an oil company."
4. Bruce, Rory Knight (2005-10-29). "Vive la différence! With full government support, hunting is thriving in France". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "I recently attended a weekend in Burgundy hosted by Jean Christophe Iseux, 37, a hunt master and special adviser to the Chinese government, who styles himself "The Red Baron". A fellow guest was Bob Hawke, the former trade unionist and Labour prime minister of Australia. ... said Iseux, referring to the pre-Revolutionary finery of dress that all hunts adopt. An aristocrat by birth, living in a family chateau near Macon, his great-uncle was a radical socialist MP for Burgundy. Oxford-educated Iseux believes that there is nothing incompatible about his love of la chasse and his work as a professor at the People's University of China in Beijing, an MP in the Chinese parliament and consultant to the Chinese government. ... Over the years, Iseux has hunted with an eclectic mixture of European ministers, aristocrats, writers, painters and even the female head of the French prison service."
5. Han, Baoyi (2019-06-14). "'Sweetener' strategy on trade dispute set to fail". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "... said Jean Christophe Iseux, a former European diplomat. ... Iseux came to China the first time in 1997 as a visiting professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. He traveled all around China and did case studies of state-owned enterprise reform and issues relating to agriculture, rural areas, and rural residents in China. These issues became top priorities of China's reform and opening-up policy."
6. "Explainer: A glimpse of Chinese democracy through lens of 'two sessions'". China Daily. Xinhua News Agency. 2023-03-07. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "In 2001, a man with a pointy nose and a pair of sunken eyes arrived in northeast China's Changchun City. The man, with the name Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, turned out to be the first ever non-Chinese member of the CPPCC. He was in Changchun not for travelling, but for attending its city-level CPPCC. "This was an amazing opportunity in 2001 to be invited by the then a mayor of Changchun to be a special invited member of CPPCC. But it was also a very important element of my learning curve on how the democratic system in China did work," said Pfetten, now president of the Institute for East-West Strategic Studies in Britain."
7. Hamid, Hamisah (2005-07-30). "'China wants Malaysia's main trade partner'". Business Times. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "Special adviser to central and local governments of China, Jean-Christophe Iseux, said ... Iseux, a Frenchman fluent in English and Mandarin, said many Malaysian investors in China have benefited from their investments. ... Iseux himself is the first and only Caucasian ever as Specially Invited Member of the Chinese Upper House of Parliament and has been ChangChun delegate of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) since December 2002. ... Iseux, who is currently an adviser on Foreign Economic Cooperation to the PCC central committee ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about the article's neutrality can be dealt with through editing as advised at Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems. Conflict of interest editing can be dealt with by following the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest. I don't think deletion is the right approach. Cunard (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for failure to state a valid deletion rationale. "BLP Issues" does not represent such a rationale.

Nobody has said the article as it stands is inadequately sourced for WP:BASIC. On my review it does cite substantial coverage of this individual (although, as I point out above, there may be some verifiability issues and one of the claims to fame seems to be overstated). Once the additional sources identified by @Cunard are taken into consideration, a notability-based rationale is even harder to maintain.

@KJP1 has made a good argument that there are conduct issues related to the page. However, as they concede, this is not the place for such arguments. Oblivy (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you see any BLP issues remove them, don't take it to AfD. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, no reason for deletion on the typical deletion guidelines has been found.

However, on a separate note, I am curious if anyone has an actual (rather than potentially circular) source for his title being "Baron von Pfetten zu St. Mariakirchen". For instance, in a lot of press he is reported as Jean-Cristophe Iseux (no von Pfetten). I believe this may be his original name?

For instance, the Catholic Herald is very careful about his titling (not so for Lord Bamford), although the description for him seems perhaps self-sourced, here: https://catholicherald.co.uk/uk-catholic-leaders-of-today-2022-business-and-philanthropy/

And, the article on the noble family suggests the von Pfetten zu Mariakirchen line died out: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfetten

EPEAviator (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Speedy Keep’’’sufficient reliable external sources from reputable news media (FT, WSJ, Guardian, Spiegel, etc.) to warrant retention of this page. No valid justification for deletion provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJ111 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC) — PeterJ111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep: per Oblivy, WP:CSK#1. If there are BLP concerns about unsourced content or ambiguity of his title, those should be raised in the talk page instead of filing for deletion. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and I do not find this case to be necessary of WP:TNT. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:49, 24 June 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. No new comments since the last relisting so, like the first AFD, I'm closing this discussion as No consensus. Let's not see this article back for a third AFD for a year, how does that sound? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domaine Ylang Ylang

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to have enough coverage in references, so does not pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Mauritius. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you jump the gun and delete it which appears to be your specislisation, I suggest you give this plant the time to grow and for it to be properly documented. Thank you. Stockbroker369 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a food, drink place LOL. This is a famous Domaine in Mauritius, close to Mahebourg. Stockbroker369 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd maybe look at CORP notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources identified by Rosguill in the last AfD seem to be enough to keep the article (I'm not listing them here, they can be seen by clicking on the prior AfD in the box at the right). That editor's analysis is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept draftification as an WP:ATD since appropriate references have not been added since the previous AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG, how about you add the sources yourself instead? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I? Articles do not need to get sent back to the beginning just because someone didn't follow the directions perfectly. It would probably take you less time to copy and paste those sources over than has already been spent in this AFD.

There isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources. Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. As a long-term project, if you want to be able to delete or hide articles because they don't contain at least one source, then I suggest that you propose that. There was some effort to extended WP:BLPPROD rules to all articles earlier this year. The consensus went the other way, but perhaps if you read that discussion, you'd be able to find a path forward towards your goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I see no reason to change my course. Good day. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Stockbroker369 This is an interesting article. It would be to your advantage if you could add a couple of more inline sources. Preferably in the first two paragraphs. Also images need to have the description on them like I just added. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is possible that this is heading toward a consensus to keep the article. Please comment on the sources raised in the previous AFD and whether the subject meets the general notability guidelines or WP:NCORP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:54, 19 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denice Zamboanga

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on this mixed martial artist was deleted three years ago after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denice Zamboanga as failing to meet either mixed martial arts notability or general notability. At the time, there were also multiple drafts, probably because someone was trying to game the system. The originators were then blocked for sockpuppetry. This article does not differ materially from the deleted article. The subject still is not top-ten-ranked, and so does not meet mixed martial arts notability. The article does not speak for itself and explain how the subject meets general notability. The subject's association with the ONE Championship is now verified, but "so what?", participation in the ONE Championship is not grounds for notability. The article has been reference-bombed, but nothing in the article refers to significant coverage in an article that does not speak for itself. This article differs enough from the deleted article so that speedy deletion is not in order; but it does not differ enough from the deleted article to avoid deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Martial arts, and Philippines. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 4, 8, 9, 20 and 24 are all RS that talks about her, the article seems to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source #4 is her brother talking, and the subject is only namedropped. Source #8 interviews her, and almost entirely consists of quotes from the subject. Source #9 ... inquirer.net is a reliable source, but that's a scanty article consisting of five sentences aside from quotes from the subject, and that barely scrapes by if at all. #20 looks like a good source. #24 is scanty routine sports coverage. I'm not digging deeper one way or another, but they're weak reeds to hang a keep. Ravenswing 02:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments She has never met WP:NMMA. The first source mentioned above is an article about her brother, she is mentioned in passing because she was on the same fight card. The next three are pre-fight articles about her first match in the promotion's Grand Prix tournament (which would be typical coverage for any fighter). The final reference is a report on that fight, which she lost. Even if you believe that coverage is significant, it is all about one event. Didn't check other references, so I'm not voting yet. Papaursa (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In addition to the sources already in the article, there is [[50]] and [[51]]. Not sure if it is enough to meet the notability guidelines though. Let'srun (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not meet criteria for WP:MMA. Passing mentions, quotes, interviews, event announcement and results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NMMA with sources mentioned by Oaktree and Let's run. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say she meets WP:NMMA? Have you even read the guidelines? Subject needs to be ranked top 10 in the world not a single promotion. She is not in the Top 10 (or even in contenders) according to Sherdog rankings [52] and according to Tapology she is #58 in the world. [53]. She does not meet WP:NMMA at all. Lekkha Moun (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. I don't understand how very experienced editors can vary so widely on how they evaluate sources and their reliability. But it happens every day in AFDLand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She gets a fair bit of coverage in Filipino media [54], [55], [56], during and after matches. This suggests notability. I might call this a weak keep, but I think we have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: She quite clearly does not meet WP:NMMA, and as for WP:GNG, there are a few reliable sources, but not enough content is from them to justify notability, and too much comes from name drops/non-independent sources. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clear she doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:ANYBIO, so the question boils down to meeting WP:GNG. I commented earlier on the existing references at the time. Since then user Let'srun added two sources from the week preceding her last fight--the first is that she's training with her fiance and the second is standard prefight coverage about her bout with a completely unranked (by fightmatrix) fighter who took the fight on two weeks notice. The three sources mentioned by Oaktree_b are another pre-fight article on the same fight, that fight's result report, and that the currently injured One promotion champion is willing to fight her "dearest friend" for her title when she recovers from injury (which all sounds promotional and not-independent to me, especially given she's already got a fight scheduled for September). I see lots of coverage in terms of number of articles, but everything seems to be typical coverage that any pro MMA fighter would have. She is currently ranked 41st in the world and has never beaten a top 25 fighter, so there's nothing to distinguish her from other aspiring fighters. She's had 5 fights (3 wins, 2 losses) since the article was previously deleted so it doesn't appear that much has changed. She may become notable, but my crystal ball simply isn't that good. Papaursa (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the analysis from Papaursa, this subject may become notable in the future but doesn't meet the WP:GNG today. Let'srun (talk) 21:37, 22 June 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. Reading Vladimir Anisimoff, it certainly seems like there should be an abundance of sources on this subject. But given that there aren't, I'm closing this as Delete. Should sources be located in the future, this AFD closure can be revisited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Anisimoff

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

Appears to be built on no reliable/secondary/independent sources and I'm unable to find any myself. Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Science. Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Philosophy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Russian Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article for this person, but it has articles on other people with this name who might be notable by English Wikipedia standards. See ru:Анисимов, Владимир Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, though the article was created 10 years ago, there are zero reliable sources not connected to Anisimoff himself, and I can't find any in Russian. Artem.G (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep if the article can provide reliable sources (per WP:RS), and be re-written to read like an advert (WP:NOTADVERT). If not, delete. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article and reworded a lot of it to sound less biased and impartial. It would be appreciated if other editors could go through and help make it neutral. Mjks28 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts, but these neutrality issues aren't really a concern for AFD. As you mention, it's the sources that are the defining factor here. Aza24 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no RS on the page about the person except his own publications. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 25 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Kuk-chol (footballer, born 1990)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Article has been unsourced for years, so does corresponding Korean Wikipedia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Considering the long-standing sourcing issue, perhaps deletion is the best option. Waqar💬 19:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, and has been a WP:STUB since 2012. Only has one source. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:34, 23 June 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.